INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. See Merit Systems Protection Board. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY EXHAUSTION. See Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1965. AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967. See Em- ployment Discrimination, 3. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. See Employ- ment Discrimination, 1, 2. ARBITRATION. See Employment Discrimination, 1. ARIZONA. See Supreme Court, 2. ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. See Supreme Court, 2. AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES. See Constitutional Law, III, 1. BIVENS-TYPE CAUSES OF ACTION. Damages action—Private entities acting under color of federal law.— Limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law, such as petitioner operator of a halfway house under a Bureau of Prisons contract. Correc- tional Services Corp. v. Malesko, p. 61. BORDER PATROL. See Constitutional Law, III, 1. BUREAU OF PRISONS. See Bivens-Type Causes of Action. CABLE TELEVISION. See Pole Attachments Act. CAPITAL MURDER. See Constitutional Law, I, 1. CAR SEARCHES. See Constitutional Law, III, 1. CERTIFIED QUESTION. See Supreme Court, 2. CERTIORARI. See Supreme Court, 3. CIVIL COMMITMENT. See Constitutional Law, I, 3. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. See Employment Discrimination, 3. 1303 1304 INDEX CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978. See Merit Systems Pro- tection Board. COAL INDUSTRY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFIT ACT OF 1992. Out-of-business coal operators—Assignment of retired miners to suc- cessors in interest.—Act does not permit Social Security Commissioner to assign retired miners to successors in interest of out-of-business coal operators that signed collective-bargaining agreements requiring contri- butions to 1950 or 1974 Benefits Plans for miners. Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., p. 438. COAST GUARD. See Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. See Coal Industry Re- tiree Health Benefit Act of 1992; Merit Systems Protection Board. COLOR OF FEDERAL LAW. See Bivens-Type Causes of Action. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See also Supreme Court, 2, 3. I. Due Process. 1. Death penalty—Jury instructions.—Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence when his jury was deciding whether to recommend death or life imprison- ment. Kelly v. South Carolina, p. 246. 2. Forfeiture notice—Mailing to prisoner.—Government’s notice of cash forfeiture sent by certified mail to petitioner’s place of incarceration satisfied due process. Dusenbery v. United States, p. 161. 3. State Sexually Violent Predator Act—Civil commitment of sexual offenders.—Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, set forth no requirement that a dangerous sexual offender have a total or complete lack of control to civilly commit him under Kansas’ law, but Constitution does not permit such commitment without any lack-of-control determination. Kansas v. Crane, p. 407. II. Freedom of Speech. Public forum—Time, place, and manner restriction.—A content- neutral time, place, and manner permit scheme regulating speech in a public forum need not contain procedural safeguards described in Freed- man v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51. Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., p. 316. III. Searches and Seizures. 1. Stop by border patrol—Reasonable suspicion.—Considering totality of circumstances and giving due weight to factual inferences drawn by a border patrol agent and a District Court Judge, agent had reasonable sus- picion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity when he INDEX CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued. was stopped while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of south- eastern Arizona. United States v. Arvizu, p. 266. 2. Warrentless search—Probation condition.—Warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condi- tion of his probation that he submit to search at anytime, satisfied Fourth Amendment. United States v. Knights, p. 112. CRIMINAL LAW. See Constitutional Law, I, 1; III. DEATH PENALTY. See Constitutional Law, |, 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION. See Employment Discrimination, I, 2. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM. See Su- preme Court, 3. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. See Merit Systems Protection Board. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE. See Employment Discrimina- tion, 3. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY. See Employment Dis- crimination, 1, 2. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN. See Employ- ment Discrimination, 3. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE. See Supreme Court, 3. DUE PROCESS. See Constitutional Law, I. EDUCATION RECORDS. See Family Educational Rights and Pri- vacy Act of 1974. EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. See Supreme Court, 2 ELEVENTH AMENDMENT. See Jurisdiction. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974. Enforcement action—Reimbursement provision.—Because petitioners in this action to enforce an ERISA plan’s reimbursement provision by requiring respondents to pay third-party recovery proceeds to plan are seeking legal relief, this suit is not authorized by ERISA §502(a)(8), which prescribes a suit for “appropriate equitable relief.” Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, p. 204. 1306 INDEX EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES. See Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; Employment Discrimination; Merit Sys- tems Protection Board. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION. 1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990—Effect of arbitration agreement on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actions for judicial relief—An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar EEOC from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and dam- ages, in an action to enforce Title I of ADA. EEOC v. Waffie House, Ine., p. 279. 2. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990—Limitation of major life activities.—Sixth Circuit did not apply proper standard in determining that respondent was disabled under ADA where it analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether respondent’s impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central im- portance to most people’s daily lives. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Wil- liams, p. 184. 3. Civil Rights Act of 1964—Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967—Pleading standard for complaint.—A complaint in an employ- ment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under framework set forth in McDon- nell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, but instead must contain only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is en- titled to relief,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., p. 506. EQUITABLE RELIEF. See Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. See Prison Liti- gation Reform Act of 1965. FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT. Limitations period—Exception to 2-year rule.—Act’s statute of limita- tions—which requires an action to be brought “within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has. . . willfully misrepresented any information required . . . to be disclosed to [the plaintiff] and the information . . . is material to [a claim under the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after” the plaintiff discovers the misrepresentation, 15 U.S.C. §1681p—is not governed by a general rule that limitations period begins to run when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she was injured. TRW Inc. v. Andrews, p. 19. INDEX 1307 FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT OF 1974. Education records release—Peer grading.—Peer grading—where stu- dents score each other’s tests, papers, and assignments as teacher explains correct answers—does not violate Act’s prohibition on release of education records without parental consent. Owasso Independent School Dist. No. I-011 v. Falvo, p. 426. FEDERAL EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES. See Merit Systems Pro- tection Board. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. See Employment Dis- crimination, 3. FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS. See Habeas Corpus. FEDERAL TAXES.. See indian Gaming Regulatory Act. FIFTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law, I, 2. FIRST AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law, II. FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY. See Constitutional Law, I, 2. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law, I, 1, 3. FOURTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law, III. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. See Constitutional Law, II. GAMBLING. See Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES. See Merit Systems Protection Board. GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS. See Merit Systems Protection Board. HABEAS CORPUS. See also Supreme Court. State grounds ade quate to bar federal review.—Two Missouri proce- dural Rules, as injected into this case by state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review of merits of petitioner’s federal constitutional claim. Lee v. Kemna, p. 362. HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. See Coal Industry Retiree Health Ben- efit Act of 1992. HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS. See Pole Attachments Act. HIGHWAY PROJECTS. See Supreme Court, 3. INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT. Exemption from federal gambling-related taxes.—Title 25 U.S.C. $2719(d)(i) does not exempt tribes from paying gambling-related taxes imposed by Internal Revenue Code chapter 35. Chickasaw Nation v. United States, p. 84. 1308 INDEX INMATE LAWSUITS. See Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1965. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. See Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. INTERNET ACCESS. See Pole Attachments Act. JURISDICTION. See also Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Supplemental jurisdiction—Suit against nonconsenting State—Toll- ing of limitations period.—Title 28 U.S. C. §1367(d), which purports to toll statute of limitations for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, does not apply to claims against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., p. 533. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. See Constitutional Law, I, 1. KANSAS. See Constitutional Law, I, 3. LABOR. See Merit Systems Protection Board. LEGAL RELIEF. See Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. LIMITATIONS PERIODS. See Fair Credit Reporting Act; Juris- diction. MARINE CASUALTIES. See Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. MEDICAID. See Social Security Act. MEDICARE CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE ACT OF 1988. See So- cial Security Act. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD. Federal Government employees—Termination and disciplinary ac- tions—Review of prior disciplinary actions.—When reviewing termina- tion and other serious disciplinary actions under Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Board may review independently prior disciplinary actions pend- ing in collectively bargained grievance proceedings. Postal Service v. Gregory, p. 1. MINERS BENEFITS. See Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992. MINNESOTA. See Jurisdiction. MISSOURI. See Habeas Corpus. MURDER. See Constitutional Law, I, 1. INDEX OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970. Pre-emption of jurisdiction—Barge as a “workplace.”—Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s jurisdiction to issue citations to re- spondent barge owner for violations stemming from an explosion on board was not pre-empted by Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of Act; and barge in question was a “workplace” covered by Act. Chao v. Mallard Bay Drill- ing, Inc., p. 235. OHIO. See Supreme Court. PARENTS AND CHILDREN. See Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. PAROLE ELIGIBILITY. See Constitutional Law, |, 1. PATENTS. Utility patents—Plants.—Utility patents may be issued for newly de- veloped plant breeds under 35 U.S.C. §101; neither Plant Variety Pro- tection Act nor Plant Patent Act of 1930 limits scope of §101’s coverage. J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., p. 124. PEER GRADING. See Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. PLANT PATENT ACT OF 1930. See Patents. PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION ACT. See Patents. POLE ATTACHMENTS ACT. Rate regulation—Attachmentfso r high-speed Internet access and wire- less telecommunications.—Act authorizes Federal Communications Com- mission to regulate rates that utilities charge for attachments providing high-speed Internet access at same time as cable television and for attach- ments providing wireless telecommunications. National Cable & Tele- communications Assn., Inc. v. Gulf Power Co., p. 327. PRISONERS. See Constitutional Law, I, 2 PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1965. Inmate lawsuits—Exzhaustion of administrative remedies.—Act’s exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or par- ticular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers’ use of exces- sive force or some other wrong. Porter v. Nussle, p. 516. PRIVACY RIGHTS. See Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. PRIVATE ENTITIES ACTING UNDER COLOR OF FEDERAL LAW. See Bivens-Type Causes of Action. 1310 INDEX PROBATION CONDITIONS. See Constitutional Law, III, 2. PUBLIC FORUMS. See Constitutional Law, II. RACE DISCRIMINATION. See Supreme Court, 3. REASONABLE SUSPICION. See Constitutional Law, III, 1. RETIREMENT BENEFITS. See Coal Industry Retiree Health Bene- fit Act of 1992. RIGHT TO COUNSEL. See Supreme Court, 2. RIGHT TO PRIVACY. See Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. See Constitutional Law, III. SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR ACT. See Constitutional Law, 2 SIXTH AMENDMENT. See Supreme Court, 2. SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. Medicaid—Spousal impoverishment—Income and resource alloca- tion.—Wisconsin Medicaid statute’s “income-first” prescription requiring that potential income transfers from an institutionalized spouse to a spouse living at home be considered in determining whether to increase latter’s “Community Spouse Resource Allowance” is a permissible inter- pretation of federal Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, which permits community spouses to reserve income and assets to meet their maintenance needs when institutionalized spouses become eligible for Medicaid. Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Family Servs. v. Blumer, p. 473. SOUTH CAROLINA. See Constitutional Law, I, 1. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS. See Fair Credit Reporting Act; Jurisdiction. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION. See Jurisdiction. SUPREME COURT. 1. Appointment and presentation of Pamela Talkin as Marshal, pp. V, 801. 2. Certified question—Determining state-law predicate.—To help this Court determine proper state-law predicate for determining federal con- stitutional questions raised in this case, following question is certified to Arizona Supreme Court: At time of respondent’s third petition for post- conviction relief under Ariz. Rule Crim. Proc. 32, did question whether an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was of “sufficient constitutional magnitude” to require a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver for INDEX SUPREME COURT—Continued. purposes of Rule 32.2(a)(3) depend upon particular claim’s merits or merely upon particular right alleged to have been violated? Stewart v. Smith, p. 157. 3. Certiorari—Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program.—Certio- rari is dismissed as improvidently granted because petitioner now chal- lenges statutes and regulations pertaining to Department of Transporta- tion’s direct procurement of highway construction on federal lands when Tenth Circuit considered only constitutionality of DOT’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program as it pertains to using federal funds for state and local highway projects. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, p. 103. 4. Stay—Habeas corpus relief—Death-row inmate.—Warden’s applica- tion to stay District Court proceedings that would develop a factual record to determine if an Ohio death-row inmate should be permitted to file a second federal habeas petition is denied. Bagley v. Byrd, p. 1301 (STE- VENS, J., in chambers). TAXES. See Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. TELECOMMUNICATIONS. See Pole Attachments Act. TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS. See Constitutional Law, II. TOLLING OF LIMITATIONS PERIODS. See Jurisdiction. UTILITY PATENTS. See Patents. UTILITY REGULATION. See Pole Attachments Act. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. See Constitutional Law, III, 2. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS. See Pole Attachments Act. WISCONSIN. See Social Security Act. WORDS AND PHRASES. 1. “Appropriate equitable relief.” §502(a)(3), Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S. C. §1132(a)(3). Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, p. 204. 2. “Date on which the liability arises.” Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S. C. §168lp. TRW Ine. v. Andrews, p. 19. 9 3. “Substantially limits . . . major life activities.” Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S. C. §12102(2)(A). Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, p. 184. 1312 INDEX WORDS AND PHRASES—Continued. 4. “Workplace.” §4(a), Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S. C. §653(a). Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., p. 235. WORKPLACE SAFETY. See Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.