Case at a Glance

Elderly residents of public housing were evicted after members of their households engaged in illegal drug activity without the elderly residents' knowledge. A lease clause required by HUD provided the basis for a "no-fault" eviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction blocking the eviction. Facing a conflict in the circuits, the Supreme Court must decide whether HUD's lease clause contains an implied "innocent tenant" defense to eviction.

• 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

Supreme Court precedent requires court appointment of counsel in felony cases for any indigent defendant who wants a lawyer. A defendant is also entitled to court-appointed counsel in any misdemeanor case in which he or she is sentenced to incarceration. In this case, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a defendant was denied the right to counsel when, upon conviction, he was sentenced to a jail term of 30 days, which the trial court immediately suspended.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The constitutional drama of school choice is presented by an Ohio scholarship program that allows low-income families to choose among public, private, and religious schools. Opponents say this program establishes religion in violation of the First Amendment. The benefited parents say it is simply a matter of nondiscrimination and genuine neutrality.

• Previewed by Douglas W. Kmiec, the Dean and St. Thomas More Professor of Law at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision
More information about this case is available in Cases of Interest to the School Community.

Case at a Glance

In 1989, the Court confronted the issue of whether the Eighth Amendment barred execution of the mentally retarded. At that time, the Court concluded that a "national consensus" against such executions had not yet emerged. Daryl Renard Atkins, a mentally retarded Virginia capital inmate with an I.Q. of 59, argues that such a consensus has now emerged and asks the Court to re-visit the issue it rejected in 1989.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, the deputy director of the Innocence Project and a visiting professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Eleventh Amendment protects states from citizen-initiated federal lawsuits. In this case, the United States Supreme Court must decide whether it also immunizes them from citizen-initiated federal agency proceedings.

• Previewed by Robert M. Jarvis, a professor of law at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Although not expressly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held that, with some exceptions, the Eleventh Amendment protects a state from being sued by its own citizens. This case presents the issue of whether a state that voluntarily "removes" a case to federal court and then seeks to have the case dismissed should be deemed to have waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity even if state law does not expressly authorize the removing official to consent to suit.

• 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

In 1976, the Supreme Court first ruled that commercial speech was entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court ruled for pharmacists who challenged a ban on advertising prescription-drug prices. Now the justices will consider whether a ban on advertising the availability of particular compounded drugs violates pharmacists' free-speech rights.

• 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

In the 1930s and 1940s, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of numerous city ordinances that had been enforced against Jehovah's Witnesses. These ordinances restricted the religious group's right to distribute literature and discuss their religious beliefs to fellow citizens in various locations. This term, the Court returns to its First Amendment roots to examine the constitutionality of an ordinance that requires all door-to-door solicitors to obtain a solicitation permit before canvassing for any purpose.

• 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
More information about this case is available in Cases of Interest to the School Community.

Case at a Glance

The Americans with Disabilities Act permits an employer to refuse to hire someone who poses a "direct threat" to the health or safety of others in the workplace. The Supreme Court will decide whether the direct-threat defense allows an employer to reject an applicant because he, while posing no threat to others, presents a direct threat to his own health or safety.

• 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

Section 2244(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 contains a one-year statute of limitations for state prisoners seeking federal habeas review. Subsection (2) tolls that statute for pending applications in state court for post-conviction relief. In this case, the Supreme Court will have to decide the scope of the term "pending" as it applies to a state petitioner's four-and-a-half month delay in seeking review, a delay that might be permitted under state law, but might also bar federal relief.

• 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