Two Missouri procedural Rules, as injected into this case by the state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review of the merits of petitioner's federal constitutional claim.

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, but the Constitution does not permit such commitment without any lack-of-control determination.

The Pole Attachments Act authorizes the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the rates that utilities charge for attachments providing high-speed Internet access at the same time as cable television and for attachments providing wireless telecommunications.

Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by a border patrol agent and the District Court Judge, the agent had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity when he was stopped while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona.

An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

A content-neutral time, place, and manner permit scheme regulating speech in a public forum need not contain the procedural safeguards described in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.

Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.

The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.

The Sixth Circuit did not apply the proper standard in determining that respondent was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because that court 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 importance to most people's daily lives.