Case at a Glance

Under the Equal Footing doctrine, all new states entering the union retained title to certain lands, including submerged lands underlying inland navigable waters. However, at statehood, the federal government could prevent title for certain submerged lands from passing to the state. In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether Alaska holds title to marine submerged lands in Southeast Alaska, including those within Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.

• Previewed by Marisa Martin, a staff attorney at the Wyoming Outdoor Council in Lander, Wyoming.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (9 U.S.C. §136) imposes labeling duties on pesticide manufacturers. FIFRA prohibits state-law damage claims that would impose labeling duties different from or in addition to those imposed under the Act. This case asks whether state common-law claims against a pesticide manufacturer for misrepresentation, false advertising, and deceptive trade practices would impose prohibited additional "requirements" so that they are preempted under the law.

• Previewed by Mary Phelan D'Isa, a professor of law at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

During the 18th and early 19th centuries, the Oneida Nation lost possession of nearly all of its landholdings in central New York even though in the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua the United States had acknowledged the Oneidas' ownership of the Oneida Reservation and promised they would be secure in its possession. During the 20th century, the Oneida Indian Nation of New York began to reacquire lands within the reservation, including within the City of Sherrill. The city is now attempting to tax these reacquired lands, and the Oneidas oppose this effort.

• Previewed by Christopher Karns, a partner in the Indian Law Practice Group of Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Washington, D.C.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Purported former spies sued the Central Intelligence Agency, claiming the CIA had breached its commitment to provide perpetual financial assistance in return for the espionage activities they conducted in their native country before their relocation to the United States. The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether a federal district court is barred from considering the spies' claims that the CIA had wrongfully refused to keep its promise to provide them with lifetime financial assistance.

• 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

Plaintiffs in a Section 10(b) securities fraud action must prove that the defendant's alleged misstatement or omission caused the loss for which the plaintiffs seek to recover damages. In this case the Supreme Court will decide what plaintiffs must prove in order to establish "loss causation" in a case invoking a fraud-on-the-market theory.

• Previewed by Brett G. Scharffs, a professor of law at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In February 2000, death row prisoner Charles Russell Rhines filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Sixteen months later, the federal court ruled that Rhines's petition included "unexhausted" claims. Unless the federal court retains jurisdiction, however, Rhines cannot return to state court to exhaust because any post-exhaustion filings in federal court will be deemed untimely, due to the time it took the federal court to rule on exhaustion.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, 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

Ronald Rompilla was sentenced to death in 1988 by a Pennsylvania jury that heard little in mitigation. The jury asked for instructions about the meaning of a life sentence but the court did not answer, in accordance with state law. Now Rompilla claims that his trial attorneys ineffectively failed to investigate, develop, and present a wealth of mitigating evidence, and that his jury should have been told of his parole ineligibility if sentenced to life imprisonment.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, 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

When Robert Johnson was sentenced for distributing cocaine base, his federal sentence was increased based on his two prior state convictions. Several years later, one of the state sentences was vacated. However, the federal district court held that he could not now seek to vacate his enhanced federal sentence, because the statute of limitations had expired. The issue in this case concerns when the clock started ticking on that one-year limitation period.

• Previewed by Elizabeth B. Wydra, a fellow at 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

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 grants to local municipalities primary control over the placement, construction and modification of wireless facilities. The Act further states that a municipality cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers, and specifies expedited procedures for the appeal of an applicant's denial. The Act does not expressly authorize damages or attorney's fees for a wrongful denial. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has concluded that damages and attorney's fees are recoverable under § 1983 for a wrongful denial.

• Previewed by Ralph C. Anzivino, 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

The State of Oklahoma holds a "semi-closed" primary, in which registered members of a political party are automatically eligible to vote in that party's primary election, and a party may invite independent voters—but not voters registered as members of another party—to participate. The Libertarian Party of Oklahoma and several registered members of other parties argue that the First Amendment permits members of other parties to vote in the Libertarian Party's primary, if the party invites them.

• Previewed by Howard M. Wasserman, an assistant professor at Florida International University College of Law in Miami, Florida.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision