Case at a Glance

Increasingly rapid technological advancements have become central features of modern life. While some of this technology has clear applications to law enforcement, it can also threaten personal privacy. At issue in this case is thermal imaging, a technology that enables police seeking evidence of indoor marijuana growing operations to detect the pattern of heat escaping from a home. The Supreme Court is now asked to determine whether the police use of a thermal imager to detect heat that is either within a home or radiating from it is a “search” governed by the Fourth Amendment.

• Previewed by William P. Weiner, a professor of law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

• Read the accompanying full-text article from Preview for this case.
• More information is also available in Cases of Interest to the School Community.

Case at a Glance

In this case, Edward R. Coss, Jr. and Pennsylvania prosecutors disagree over whether Coss can challenge, in federal court, a 1993 state court sentence that was based in part on a prior, fully expired 1986 state court conviction. Coss argues that fundamental fairness demands that prosecutors resentence him without considering his earlier, constitutionally deficient conviction. The prosecutors contend that the state's interest in the finality of convictions precludes such a result.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Sixteen federal judges say that Congress unconstitutionally reduced their compensation by ordering them to start paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, beginning in the early 1980s. The U.S. government disagrees, saying the judges' tax burden is one incurred by virtually all working Americans and does not violate the Constitution's protection of judicial independence.

• Previewed by Steve Lash, a Maryland lawyer who has written extensively on the U.S. Supreme Court for numerous publications.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Many "deportable" aliens cannot be deported, either because of the absence of repatriation agreements or for other reasons. Our immigration laws provide for the detention of aliens awaiting deportation for a statutory 90-day removal period, but set no limits on detention beyond that. The attorney general may detain them further if she determines that they represent either a flight risk or a risk to the community. In this consolidated case, two aliens, detained for substantial periods, challenge the attorney general’s statutory and constitutional authority to detain aliens indefinitely.

• Previewed by Michael G. Heyman, a professor of law at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, Ill.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Under the National Labor Relations Act, supervisory employees cannot be included in a bargaining unit with employees. The statute defines supervisors as, inter alia, individuals who responsibly direct the work of others through the use of "independent judgment." The National Labor Relations Board has determined that an employee’s exercise of ordinary professional judgment in directing less skilled employees does not constitute “independent judgment” within the meaning of the statute.

• Previewed by Barbara J. Fick, an associate professor at Notre Dame Law School in Notre Dame, Ind.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

To ensure substantive due process under the Constitution, federal trial courts may review jury punitive damage awards for “gross excessiveness.” However, the Seventh Amendment, which preserves the right to a jury trial in actions at law, prohibits judicial reexamination of any fact tried by a jury. The question here is whether appellate review of a trial court’s decision regarding an excessiveness challenge is limited to an abuse of discretion standard, or whether appellate courts may undertake de novo (independent) review -- and whether either standard comports with the Seventh Amendment.

• Previewed by Mary Phelan D’Isa, a Professor of Law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Many states have enacted “prevailing wage laws,” which require all contractors working on public work projects to pay their employees “prevailing wages.” The statute authorizes the State Department of Labor to issue a “Notice to Withhold” to an awarding body (the owner) to withhold payments due under the contract to the prime contractor for alleged violations. The Notice to Withhold is made without notice or a hearing. Contractors claim this procedure violates due process of law.

• 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

Anthony Palazzolo argues that he has been denied development rights comparable to those of his neighbors. Rhode Island says he isn’t entitled to these rights since he acquired his property knowing development in a wetlands area to be restricted. Palazzolo responds that property cannot be effectively “taken” merely upon notice or legislative enactment. Once again, the Court is called to balance competing claims of private and public rights under the takings clause.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Like a number of other federal civil rights laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 allow a “prevailing party” to obtain attorneys’ fees. In this case, the Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether a civil rights plaintiff who has not obtained a judgment, consent decree or settlement can nevertheless recover attorneys' fees as “a prevailing party” if, as a result of the plaintiff’s suit, the defendant voluntarily provides the plaintiff with the requested relief.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The application of FICA and FUTA tax to payments of back wages has long been unclear. The IRS has taken the position that awards of back wages are subject to FICA and FUTA tax in the year actually paid, while many taxpayers have claimed that FICA and FUTA are imposed in the years to which the awards of back pay relate.

• Previewed by Michael J. Collins, an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Voluntary religious clubs have a right to equal access to public facilities at the high school and college level. Milford Central School denies that this principle carries over to the elementary school level when the student activity is highly religious. The Second Circuit agreed, voting 2-1 to uphold the school’s decision to bar a Christian youth group from using its facilities after school hours. The majority cited the establishment clause; the dissenting judge -- noting that the school granted access to other groups such as the Boy Scouts -- cited the free speech clause.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

• Read the accompanying full-text article from Preview for this case.
• More information is also available in Cases of Interest to the School Community.

Case at a Glance

Campaign finance reform remains one of the more divisive political and First Amendment issues in American jurisprudence. This term the Supreme Court wades back into these troubled waters to examine a case that is now 14 years old -- and that has already been to the high Court once before.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision