Case at a Glance

Under 28 U.S.C. §1331, you may file your claim in federal district court if you can show that it "arises under" federal law. That requires you to show either that: (1) federal law creates your claim; or (2) your claim presents an "essential federal ingredient." The question is whether you can establish an essential federal ingredient merely by showing that your state-law claim requires the court to interpret federal law, or whether you must also show that the federal law is privately enforceable.

• Previewed by Mary Phelan D'Isa, a professor of law at the T.M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court established a procedure for evaluating claims of racial discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges during jury selection. That test provides for a three-step analysis, of which the first requires the opponent of the challenges to show a prima facie case of discrimination. This case asks the Court whether California has created too high a burden by requiring objectors at the first stage to show that it is more likely than not that impermissible discrimination occurred.

• Previewed by Alan Raphael, an associate professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law in Chicago, Ill.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

John Davis Stumpf pled guilty to a charge of first-degree murder, but now claims that he did not fully understand that he was waiving his right to present his view of the facts. He also alleges that the prosecution in the case of another defendant involved in the same incident presented a theory of the case that was inconsistent with Stumpf's guilt, and asserts that this practice violates his due process rights.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, the co-director of the Innocence Project and an associate professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

At issue in this case is the application of the one-year limitation period contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The habeas petitioner in this case amended his timely petition after the AEDPA's statute of limitations had expired and included a new claim that challenged the same trial and conviction that he challenged in his initial claim. The question now before the Court is whether both claims arise from the same "conduct, transaction, or occurrence" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) and relate back to the original filing?

• Previewed by Robert D. Yates, a former managing editor of the ABA Journal and an Evanston, Ill., free-lance writer and editor specializing in legal affairs.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Under the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act, research conducted in order to obtain FDA market approval of a generic drug enjoys exemption from patent infringement liability. 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). The Supreme Court now considers whether a drug company's research effort aimed at identifying compounds as potential new or "pioneer" drugs and determining their safety for use in human clinical trials falls under the same exemption from patent infringement.

• Previewed by David C. Berry, an associate professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Rochester, Michigan, and assistant director of Cooley's Graduate Program in Intellectual Property and Technology Law.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Karen Wilson filed a Federal False Claims Act suit in 2001 claiming that her former employer had submitted false claims and alleging that she had been constructively discharged from her job in 1997. The Supreme Court is asked to determine which limitations period applies to her retaliation claim: the six-year limitation period provided by the federal Act or the three-year limitation provided by state law.

• Previewed by Jay E. Grenig, a professor of law at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Most states provide for a right to appeal and the appointment of counsel for all or most indigents wishing to appeal from their felony criminal convictions. Michigan does not allow automatic appeals to most defendants pleading guilty but instead allows them to apply for leave to appeal without benefit of the assistance of counsel. This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the federal Constitution requires Michigan to appoint counsel for these defendants to assist in filing their applications for leave to appeal.

• Previewed by Alan Raphael, an associate professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law in Chicago, Ill.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The question before the Court in this case is whether a prisoner's motion to have the judgment against him set aside on the basis that there has been an intervening change in the law should be dismissed on the basis that it constitutes a "second or successive" habeas petition under AEDPA.

• Previewed by Elizabeth B. Wydra, a fellow in the Appellate Litigation Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In these consolidated cases, the Supreme Court will decide whether a Michigan statute that imposes a $100 fee on vehicles involved in business within the state violates the "dormant Commerce Clause" doctrine. Further, the Court will determine whether a federal statute precludes Michigan from imposing fees on vehicles involved in wholly interstate commerce under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

• Previewed by Will Trachman, a third-year student at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), and Nina Paul a second-year student at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and reviewed by University of California, Hastings College of the Law Prof. Vikram Amar.

Case Highlights of 03-1230; Case Highlights of 03-1234
Supreme Court Decisions: Read decision in 03-1230; Read decision in 03-1234

Case at a Glance

Since the conclusion of Gregory Thompson's Tennessee capital trial, he has complained that his trial counsel failed to present the sentencing jury with mitigating evidence of his mental health problems. Later, Dr. Faye Suntan did provide her opinion of the nature and extent of Thompson's mental illness. Nonetheless, Thompson's habeas counsel failed to present this information to the federal courts. After denying relief, the court of appeals learned of Dr. Sultan's opinion and sua sponte reversed its earlier opinion.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, the co-director of the Innocence Project and an associate professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Advised that its client Enron was in trouble, and that it too faced SEC investigation, Andersen, Enron's auditor, immediately undertook a massive document shredding operation and was convicted of witness tampering. Now the Supreme Court will determine whether Andersen was corruptly trying to subvert an official proceeding or acting lawfully.

• Previewed by Michael Kaye, director of the Center for Excellence in Advocacy and professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka in Topeka, Kansas.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision