Case at a Glance

In 1870, the United States Army established a military post known as Fort Apache. In 1960, the government declared that it would hold the Fort in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe. Today it would cost the Tribe approximately $14 million to re-landscape this historic district and rehabilitate all of the buildings that the government has allowed to fall in disrepair. The question for the Court now becomes whether money damages can be awarded against the United States for its alleged breach of trust.

• Previewed by Joy Marie Gordon, a third-year student at the University of Connecticut School of Law, and Nell Jessup Newton, dean at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford, Conn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1964, the Navajo Nation entered into a fixed-price lease entitling the Peabody Coal Company to mine coal for 20 years at a royalty rate of 37.5 cents per ton. When the lease came up for renewal in 1984, federal studies concluded that a 20 percent royalty rate would be reasonable. After attending an ex parte meeting with coal company officials, however, the secretary of the interior delayed issuing a final decision approving the 20 percent increase and later approved a much lower royalty rate. Now the Tribe seeks money damages for the secretary's alleged breach of trust.

• Previewed by Nell Jessup Newton, dean at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford, Conn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Corporate owners and officers generally cannot be held personally liable for the unlawful acts of a subordinate unless they directly participated in or authorized the subordinate's wrongful conduct. The Fair Housing Act, however, provides broad protection to victims of housing discrimination and the Court must now address whether the sole owner, president and designated broker of a real estate corporation can be held personally liable under the FHA for failing to ensure the corporation's compliance with the law.

• Previewed by David L. Hudson, an attorney with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

When a child is eligible for Social Security benefits, federal law provides a process by which a "representative payee" may be appointed to receive and administer the funds on behalf of the child. This case presents the issue of whether a state agency that has been designated as a child's representative payee violated federal law when it used the child's Social Security benefits to reimburse itself for foster care expenditures.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) requires predicate wrongful conduct. The organizers of protest activity at abortion clinics were found to have committed "extortion" in violation of the Hobbs Act and state law as the predicate wrongful conduct triggering RICO remedies. This case asks for a determination under RICO regarding what political protest activity constitutes "racketeering activity," and whether federal courts are authorized to issue an injunction at the behest of a private citizen to enjoin future wrongful conduct.

• Previewed by Ralph C. Anzivino, a professor of law at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wis.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Stopped by police officers investigating narcotics activity, Oliverio Martinez was found to have a concealed knife. A fight ensued and Martinez was shot, then arrested. Blinded, paralyzed, and in extreme pain, he was rushed to the hospital where a police officer persisted in questioning him against his will and without giving Miranda warnings. No criminal charges were ever filed. Martinez sued for violation of his civil rights, arguing he was entitled to be free from coercive police questioning whether or not his statements were ever used at a trial.

• Previewed by Michael Kaye, a professor of law at Washburn University of Topeka Law School in Topeka, Kan.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Court will determine whether the taxpayer was required to allocate certain research and development expenses in accordance with Treasury regulations or whether the taxpayer's application of the methodology used for its internal accounting purposes was appropriate. The Court will decide whether relatively clear congressional intent takes precedence over arguably conflicting Treasury regulations.

• Previewed by Michael J. Collins is an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, in Denver, Colo.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

All 50 states and the District of Columbia require attorneys to deposit certain amounts paid over by clients to trust accounts, the interest of which is used to fund legal services for the disadvantaged. The Supreme Court will decide whether these "IOLTA" programs violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

• Previewed by Michael J. Collins is an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, in Denver, Colo.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

When the Mississippi legislature failed to adopt a congressional redistricting plan to reflect the fact that the state lost one seat in the House of Representatives after the 2000 census, competing parties filed competing law suits—one in state court and one in federal court—asking each of those courts to draw new districts. Proceeding almost simultaneously, the two courts adopted different plans, and the federal court enjoined implementation of the state court plan. Now the Supreme Court must sort it all out.

• Previewed by Kevin J Worthen, a professor of law and associate dean at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1993, Angelo Tsakopoulos purchased the 8,000-acre Borden Ranch in the Central Valley of California with the intent of changing it from rangeland to orchard and other uses. To do so, he had to break through the clay pan using a technique called "deep ripping," an activity that the Army Corps of Engineers insisted required a permit. Tsakopoulos ripped ahead without a permit and by 1996 had nearly doubled his $8.3 million investment. Litigation ensued in which the Corps won relief that included penalties valued at $1.5 million.

• Previewed by Robert Abrams, Professor of Law at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit, Mich., and Marisa Martin, a Graduate Student Instructor teaching Environmental Law at the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources & Environment in Ann Arbor, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a St. Paul, Minn., ordinance that prohibited the placing of symbols, such as a burning cross or a Nazi swastika, on another's property for the purpose of arousing anger in others "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender." Now, 10 years later, the Court has agreed to examine a Virginia statute that prohibits the burning of a cross on private or public property with the intent of "intimidating any person."

• Previewed by David L. Hudson, an attorney with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutional limits on punitive damages awards in a case in which the respondents won a verdict for $1 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. On appeal, State Farm argues that the Utah courts were improperly punishing it for alleged misconduct that occurred outside the borders of the state of Utah and that therefore the punitive damages award went well beyond Utah's interest in punishing and deterring misconduct in Utah and protecting Utah citizens.

• Previewed by Rachel A. Van Cleave, a professor of law at Texas Tech University School of Law in Lubbock, Texas.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision