Case at a Glance

In 1995, Kansas was successful in winning a judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court that Colorado has violated the Arkansas River Compact. This case continues the remedy stage of that litigation and raises, primarily, two issues: one a multi-million dollar question pertaining to the availability of prejudgment interest in the earliest years of underdelivery, the other an Eleventh Amendment defense that contends Kansas cannot be awarded a money judgment because it is acting as a surrogate for the injured individuals.

• Previewed by Robert H. Abrams, a professor of law at Wayne State University School of Law in Detroit, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Under federal law, Indian tribes, as sovereign governments, cannot be sued unless they have consented to suit or the federal government has consented for them; any consent to be sued—i.e., any waiver of sovereign immunity—must be “clear” and “unequivocally expressed.” In this case, officials of an Indian tribe signed a construction contract with a private contractor. The contract contained a standard arbitration clause, and now the Court must determine whether the tribe waived its immunity from suit in state court when its officials entered into a contract containing such an arbitration clause.

• Previewed by Vicki J. Limas, an associate dean and associate professor of law at the University of Tulsa College of Law.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that "the reasonableness inquiry as to whether a defendant is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity in a claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment is the same as the reasonableness inquiry on the merits of such a claim.” In this case, the United States argues that a military police officer should be immune from damages because it was not obvious to that officer that the force he was using was unreasonable, even if in fact it was unreasonable.

• 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

In an effort to reduce the perceived burdens of prisoners’ lawsuits, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust “available” administrative remedies before filing certain lawsuits contesting the legality of the conditions of their confinement. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether this requirement applies when a prisoner seeks monetary relief and such relief cannot be obtained through the prison’s grievance process.

• Previewed by Lynn S. Branham, a visiting professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Ill.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Wednesday, March 21

Case at a Glance

In this case the Court will decide whether the fraud prohibitions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 apply to an alleged oral option to purchase stock when there was no misrepresentation or nondisclosure of relevant financial information.

• 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

Section 1983, a federal civil rights statute, permits suits for money damages against state officials under certain circumstances. In this case, the Court must determine whether an Indian tribal court has jurisdiction to adjudicate § 1983 claims brought by a tribal member against state officials seeking damages for actions that occurred on trust lands within the Indian tribe’s reservation.

• Previewed by Judith V. Royster, a professor of law and co-director of the Native American Law Center at the University of Tulsa.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A “product liability loss” incurred by a corporation may be carried back a maximum of 10 years from the loss year and used as a deduction in the carryback year(s). The question presented in this case is whether the availability of the “product liability loss” carryback for affiliated entities that file a consolidated return is to be determined by (i) aggregating the income and expenses of the consolidated entities or, (ii) separately calculating the income and expenses of each entity.

• 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

As most prisoners must do, Sherman Walker filed his own habeas corpus petition without the help of an attorney. The federal trial court dismissed it for defects without looking at the merits, but telling him he could refile. Walker’s refiled petition was dismissed because the trial court said too much time had passed. Now the Supreme Court will determine whether the days in which the case was properly filed the first time should be counted against the one-year time for filing of the AEDPA. If they are counted, the limitations period has run out.

• Previewed by Dorean Marguerite Koenig, a professor of law and a commission member of the Innocence Project at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In a series of cases over the past 20 years, the Supreme Court has limited the ability of tribes to regulate non-Indian conduct on non-Indian lands within a reservation. In this case, the Court must decide whether, and how, these limitations apply to a tribe’s authority to tax non-Indians staying at a hotel located on non-Indian land.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision