Year Case Significance
1998 Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also provided a cause of action against
an employer for sexual harassment for parties of the same sex if the
offensive conduct was committed “because of sex” by a coworker.
1998 United States v. Ramirez A unanimous Court held that a “reasonable suspicion” of exigent
circumstances such as a dangerous felon, likely destruction of evidence,
or futility in announcing the officer’s presence with the warrant would
justify a no-knock entry that resulted in property damage from the
urgent entry and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
1999 Alden v. Maine Nonconsenting states are not liable to private suits in their own
courts without sufficient involvement of the national government.
1999 Apprendi v. New Jersey A judge may not increase a criminal sentence beyond its statutory
minimum based upon the judge’s own finding of aggravating facts. All
aggravating facts must have been submitted to a jury and proved beyond
a reasonable doubt before a penalty may be increased in a hate crime.
1999 Davis v. Monroe County Board of
Education
A 6-3 Court found that, when a school has the ability to control student
conduct, a private Title IX damages action may lie against the school
for student-to-student sexual harassment if the school had actual notice
of the severe and pervasive harassment and was deliberately indifferent
to requests for intervention.1999 Kolstad v. American Dental Association A 5-4 decision held that held that employers who in good faith
implement antiharassment policies and training for their employees
cannot be made to pay punitive damages if an employee does
not comply.
1999 Lilly v. Virginia An accomplice’s out-of-court statements against a codefendant, even
if they are mildly self-incriminating, were inadmissible hearsay if
the accomplice was unavailable for cross-examination because
the accomplice had a strong motivation to exculpate himself at
the codefendant’s expense.
1999 Saenz v. Roe The Supreme Court protected the rights of out-of-state residents when
California tried to limit the level of welfare benefits it provided new
residents to whatever they would have been receiving in their state
of origin by placing durational requirements on the right to
receive benefits. The justices declared this governmental action
unconstitutional on privileges and immunities grounds under
Article IV of the Constitution.
John R. Elliott
996 Legislation: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions The Nineties in America