Case at a Glance

In a case that the Securities and Exchange Commission says could affect consumer confidence in the stock market, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Securities Exchange Act and the SEC's Rule 10b-5 permit the commission to sue a stockbroker who sold his clients' securities and used the proceeds for his personal benefit.

• Previewed by Steve Lash, a Potomac, Md., 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

Jennifer Harbury says that State Department and National Security Council officials knowingly failed to alert her to the circumstances surrounding her husband's detention by the Guatemalan military in time for her to prevent his death. The nature of the constitutional right to access to the courts is now at issue in this case in which Harbury seeks to hold the former U.S. secretary of state and other senior officials personally liable.

• Previewed by Antonio F. Perez, an associate professor of law at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Oklahoma educators require students to submit to drug tests as a condition for participating in interscholastic competition. The students, through their parents, seek to enjoin the policy as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Educators say that students who voluntarily engage in interscholastic competition have a diminished expectation of privacy and that the school has a duty to provide a safe learning environment for students.

• Previewed by Bernard James, a professor of law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, Calif.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This case presents the Supreme Court with allegations of improper appellate-jurisdiction forum shopping. The Court is asked to determine the applicability and effects of a congressional statute that sought to give the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in patent infringement actions, and its own jurisprudence on "well-pleaded complaints" and federal question jurisdiction.

• Previewed by Hugh C. Hansen, a professor of law at Fordham University School of Law in New York City.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has held that an employer does not have to have a discriminatory intent in order to be held liable under Title VII. It is enough to show that a challenged employment practice has had a "disparate impact" on covered minorities. This case asks whether a claim brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act can likewise be established by showing that a "facially neutral" employment practice has fallen more harshly on employees over the age of 40.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Each year, thousands of attorneys represent thousands of clients seeking to obtain Title II Social Security disability benefits. In this disability benefits case, the Court will decide whether the Social Security Act permits these attorneys to charge their clients a contingency fee, or whether their attorneys' fees must be set by a judge.

• 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

While state prisoners are permitted to challenge the constitutionality of their state convictions in federal court via the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court and Congress have severely limited the ability of the federal courts to hear these claims. The Sixth Circuit in this case held that the respondent was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the state hearing that resulted in a sentence of death.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Apprendi v. New Jersey held that any fact increasing a mandatory maximum sentence must be found to be true by a jury, not by a sentencing judge. In this case, Congress has provided that the fact of brandishing a firearm during a crime requires a mandatory minimum sentence, and now the Court must decide whether "brandishing" is a sentencing factor or an element of a crime under Apprendi.

• 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

Judicial campaigns have caused great controversy in certain circles, as some candidates for state judgeships have engaged in mudslinging, no-holds barred election campaigning. In this free-speech case, the Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of a provision of the Minnesota judicial code of conduct that prohibits candidates from announcing their views on "disputed legal or political issues."

• 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 Devlin, the Supreme Court will resolve an important question relating to the ability of disappointed objectors to pursue appellate challenges to class action settlements. Many federal circuit courts, including the Fourth Circuit from which Mr. Devlin appeals, restrict appellate rights only to those objectors whom the district court previously granted intervention in the underlying class action. The Court's resolution of the principles relating to objectors' appellate rights in this case will significantly affect the role of objectors in class action settlements.

• Previewed by Linda S. Mullenix, the Morris and Rita Atlas Chair in Advocacy at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Tex.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The 2000 census allocated Utah three congressional representatives and North Carolina 13 representatives. An increase of approximately 900 residents in Utah would have resulted in one more seat for Utah and one less for North Carolina. In the latest case challenging census counts, the Supreme Court will decide whether the use of an imputation procedure that added enough additional residents to North Carolina's tally to tip the balance violates the Census Act's prohibition on "statistical sampling" in the apportionment count or the constitutional requirement of an "actual Enumeration."

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision