Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 1090.0

1244 

INDEX 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued. 
speech  that  is  an  “electioneering  communication”  or  for  speech  expressly 
advocating  a  candidate’s  election  or  defeat  violate  First  Amendment,  but 
BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements are valid as applied in this 
case.  Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, p. 310. 

III.  Right  to  Public  Trial. 

Jury selection—Closed voir dire proceedings.—Sixth Amendment right 
to  a  public  trial  extends  to  voir  dire  of  prospective  jurors;  when  a  party 
seeking to close proceeding advances an overriding interest, trial court is 
required to consider alternatives to closure even when they are not offered 
by opposing party.  Presley v. Georgia, p. 209. 

CORPORATE  EXPENDITURES  ON  POLITICAL  SPEECH.  See  Con­

stitutional  Law,  II. 

CRIMINAL  LAW.  See  Constitutional  Law,  III. 

DEATH  PENALTY.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7. 

DISCLOSURE  ORDERS.  See  Jurisdiction. 

DISCOVERY  ORDERS.  See  Jurisdiction. 

DNA  EVIDENCE.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  9. 

DUE  PROCESS.  See  Constitutional  Law,  I. 

EFFECTIVE  ASSISTANCE  OF  COUNSEL.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  3, 

5,  6,  7,  8. 

ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION.  See Constitutional Law, II. 

ELECTRICITY  RATE  SETTING.  See  Federal  Power  Act. 

EMPLOYER  AND  EMPLOYEES.  See  Railway  Labor  Act. 

ENERGY  CONTRACTS.  See  Federal  Power  Act. 

EVIDENCE  OF  GUILT.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  9. 

FEDERAL  POWER  ACT. 

Electricity rate setting—Mobile-Sierra doctrine—Wholesale-energy 
contract.—Presumption  mandated  by  Mobile-Sierra  doctrine—which  re­
quires  Federal  Energy  Regulatory  Commission  to  presume  that  an  elec­
tricity  rate  set  by  a  freely  negotiated  wholesale-energy  contract  meets 
FPA’s  “just  and  reasonable”  requirement,  16  U. S. C.  § 7824d(a),  unless 
FERC  concludes  that  contract  seriously  harms  public  interest—does  not 
depend on identity of complainant seeking FERC investigation and is not 
limited  to  rate  challenges  brought  by  contracting  parties,  but  applies,  as 
well, to challenges initiated by noncontracting parties.  NRG Power Mar­
keting, LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm’n, p. 165.