Dean John Attanasio, Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs and Professor Alan B. Morrison closed Saturday's presentations with an overview of recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court. The report focused on opinions from four areas of the law: (1) employment; (2) criminal procedure; (3) campaign finance; and (4) rights of detainees.

In the employment context, Dean Attanasio reported on two significant decisions. The first, Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 124 S. Ct. 2342 (2004), provides that an employer may assert a failure to exhaust all remedies defense in a constructive discharge case only where tangible employment actions had occurred. In General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004), the Court relied on "social history" to hold that the Age Discrimination Act did not apply to "young" employees under the age of 40.

Chief Judge Boggs reported on several cases involving criminal procedure, including Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). In Blakely, the Court narrowly construed a State's statutory maximum sentencing guidelines and held that a criminal defendant may not be sentenced beyond those statutory guidelines. The Court's opinion in Blakeley has left many courts struggling with how to (or even whether to) apply the federal sentencing guidelines. Some courts, such as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, have decided to continue to enforce the sentencing guidelines until expressly struck down by the Court. Other courts have encouraged district courts to issue two alternative sentences. On the first day of the current term, the Court heard two additional cases that many believe could resolve the issue. (N.B.: Since the seminar, the Supreme Court has decided United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), holding parts of the sentencing guideline unconstitutional. Ed.)

Professor Morrison reported on cases involving campaign finance and the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), the Court upheld as narrowly-tailored restrictions on campaign moneys not raised for a specific candidate ("soft money"), including money raised by state parties used to promote federal candidates. The Court further upheld narrowly-tailored restrictions on the use of issue-specific ads in the broadcast media that include a clearly identified federal candidate. Professor Morrison also reported on two cases involving detainees held by the United States at Guantanamo. In the first case, involving a non-U.S. citizen, the Court held that it had jurisdiction over the detainee, but declined to reach the question of the detainee's rights because that question had not yet been addressed by the lower courts. See Rasul v. Bush, 124 S. Ct. 2686 (2004). In the second case, involving a U.S. citizen, the Court held that a U.S. citizen had a due process right to notice of the factual basis for his classification as an enemy combatant and the right to a fair opportunity to rebut the government's assertions before a neutral decision maker. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S. Ct. 2633 (2004).