Case at a Glance

Federal antitrust laws apply to a "person" or "persons," which includes corporations and associations authorized under the laws of the United States, but not the United States itself or its agencies and instrumentalities. With the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, Congress dramatically restructured the postal system, replacing the former Post Office Department with the United States Postal Service (USPS) and authorizing the USPS to compete for business. In launching the USPS into the commercial marketplace, did Congress intend to make this "independent establishment of the executive branch" subject to federal antitrust laws?

• Previewed by Minneapolis attorney Mark A. Cohen, editor-in-chief of the Minnesota Lawyer in Minneapolis, Minn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The case of inmate Shakur Muhammad involves the intersection of two of the most important federal statutes in constitutional law—Section 1983 and the federal habeas corpus statute. Muhammad contends that a prison guard punished him in retaliation for First Amendment-protected activity. The federal appeals court rejected his Section 1983 claim, reasoning that his claim was barred by the favorable termination rule—that inmates cannot bring Section 1983 claims unless they receive a favorable termination of their underlying misconduct charges.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Washington has a general scholarship program to help students of high ability and moderate means pursue a higher education—so long as it does not involve theology from a religious perspective. Joshua Davey qualified for a scholarship, but never received it, since he wanted to pursue the forbidden study. On this issue, does the federal Constitution trump the state's?

• Previewed by Douglas W. Kmiec, the Caruso Family Chair & Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University Law School in Malibu, Calif.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code permits consumer debtors to keep assets subject to a security interest, such as a car collateralizing the unpaid balance of its price. Exercising that option over the secured creditor's objection is known as "cramdown." Under Code § 1325(a)(5)(B), cramdown requires the debtor to promise the creditor payments with a value no less than the amount of its secured claim, an amount based on the value of the collateral. Because those payments are usually made in installments, interest must be included to maintain the required value. The courts disagree over the proper interest rate.

• Previewed by John P. Hennigan, Jr., a professor of law at St. John's University School of Law in Jamaica, N.Y.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

California attorney Alan Favish seeks the disclosure of government photos of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster's body because he believes they indicate that Foster did not commit suicide but was in fact murdered. The Supreme Court is now asked to determine whether the privacy interests of Vincent Foster's family members can prevent the disclosure of these photographs taken at the scene of Foster's death.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Privacy Act was enacted by Congress in 1974 to protect the "personal and fundamental right of individuals to privacy by regulating the collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of information by [federal] agencies." This case calls upon the Supreme Court to decide whether the minimum statutory damages section of the Act, § 552a(g)(4)(A), permits those claiming privacy violations by the United States to recover damages without proof of "actual damages" after having been subjected to an "intentional or willful" violation of the Act.

• Previewed by Elliott B. Pollack, a member of the adjunct faculty of the University of Connecticut School of Law and co-chair of the Health Care Section in the Hartford office of the Connecticut law firm Pullman & Comley.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Under statute and case law, a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. In this case, the Ninth Circuit held that the prisoner satisfied the exhaustion requirement because the state appellate courts "had the opportunity" to identify the federal claim through an independent review of the record.

• Previewed by Cindy J. Moy, an attorney and legal affairs writer in Golden Valley, Minn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1980, Delma Banks, Jr., was sentenced to death based on testimony from an informant who was admittedly recruited by and paid for by state actors, and after his jury didn't hear relevant information about his life and upbringing. Banks claims that much of the evidence in support of his current habeas claims was either withheld from him in the state courts, or was properly presented to the state courts. The Court must now decide what was presented in the state courts, what wasn't, and what couldn't have been under the unique circumstances of this case.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 2000, the Supreme Court, in Dickerson v. United States, held that the rule of Miranda v. Arizona was required by the Fifth Amendment. Previous decisions had referred to Miranda as merely a prophylactic rule designed to safeguard the interests protected by the Fifth Amendment, but not actually required by the Constitution. Here, the Court is asked to decide whether Dickerson had overruled the earlier cases and, therefore, that a gun found as a result of a Miranda violation must be suppressed.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

After arresting Patrice Seibert for murder, a detective questioned her and deliberately withheld giving her Miranda warnings in order to get a confession. He then read her Miranda rights, she waived them, and she confessed again. In this case, the Court must decide if the officer's using this "two-step" tactic requires suppressing this second statement under Miranda because of the first?

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

If the police violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by deliberately eliciting incriminating statements in the absence of counsel and without a waiver of the right to counsel, does the Constitution require suppression of a subsequent statement which was preceded by a waiver of the defendant's Miranda rights?

• Previewed by Ronald J. Bretz is a professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A Pennsylvania redistricting plan dramatically tilted the congressional playing field in favor of Republicans in a state that is nearly evenly split between the parties. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether partisan gerrymandering can be so extreme as to be unconstitutional.

• 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 and appellate litigation.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision