Case at a Glance

Robert James Tennard and Robert Smith were sentenced to death in Texas, under applications of the Texas capital sentencing scheme that the Court held to be unconstitutional in 1989 (Penry I) and 2001 (Penry II). While Texas seeks to distinguish Tennard's and Smith's sentencings from Penry I and Penry II, Tennard and Smith argue that their cases are no different, and that they should be re-sentenced to life imprisonment.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, the co-director of the Innocence Project and an assistant professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision in Tennard v. Dretke

Case at a Glance

The issue in this case is simply whether the government can force individuals to identify themselves after the police have legitimately detained them but lack probable cause to place them under arrest. Specifically, the Court is being asked to decide whether a state statute that requires detained individuals to identify themselves violates either the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In this case the Apprendi v. New Jersey requirement that all facts that can increase a criminal defendant's sentence must be established beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury is raised by a defendant whose agreed-upon sentence of 53 months was increased to 90 months after the sentencing judge alone heard evidence related to the crime.

• Previewed by Robert D. Yates, the former managing editor of the ABA Journal and an Evanston, Ill., free-lance writer and editor specializing in legal affairs and appellate litigation.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Two HMO members claimed they were injured by their HMOs' medical decisions. One plaintiff alleged he suffered bleeding ulcers after his HMO required him to use a less expensive drug than one originally prescribed by his physician; the second plaintiff claimed injuries after her HMO required her to be discharged from the hospital only one day after undergoing a hysterectomy. The Court is asked to decide whether the plaintiffs' state tort claims are preempted by ERISA.

• Previewed by Elliott B. Pollack, a member of the adjunct faculty of the University of Connecticut School of Law and a member of the Health Care Section in the Hartford office of the Connecticut law firm Pullman & Comley.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

City officials deny licenses to prospective adult business owners for a variety of reasons. These business owners often counter with First Amendment challenges. Once the adult business applicants lose in an administrative forum, Supreme Court case law provides that they must have the possibility of prompt judicial review. Does the requirement of prompt judicial review mean simply that the applicant has access to a judicial forum, or does it mean that the applicant must have a final judicial determination on the merits within a certain time?

• Previewed by David L. Hudson, Jr., an attorney with the First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In June 2002, a divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for a rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit. In February 2003, the original panel issued an amended opinion that retreated slightly from its holding that the words "under God" in the Pledge are unconstitutional, but reaffirmed that a public school district's policy of requiring teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge is unconstitutional.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Administrative Procedure Act gives federal courts authority to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). This case will decide whether courts have jurisdiction to compel agency action whenever an agency violates any mandatory statutory provision—in this case the Bureau of Land Management's obligation to manage portions of the public lands known as "Wilderness Study Areas" so as to prevent the impairment of those lands' wilderness characteristics.

• Previewed by James R. Rasband, a professor of law at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether a death row inmate's complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeking to stay the inmate's execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, was properly characterized as a habeas corpus petition filed in violation of the rules regarding second or successive habeas petitions.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Batson v. Kentucky and later cases found the use of race- or gender-based peremptory challenges to remove potential jury members unconstitutional and established a three-part test for determining whether such a constitutional violation has taken place. The Supreme Court in this case will review a California ruling requiring that the person objecting to the use of peremptories show that it is more likely than not that there has been discrimination in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican national, won a civil judgment using the Alien Tort Claims Act, a relatively obscure federal statute. In the past, the statute has permitted federal courts to award damages to aliens for torts that violate international law norms. Now that statute is challenged on the grounds that it is simply a grant of jurisdiction and does not provide for a tort cause of action. The Supreme Court must decide whether the statute can continue to be used or whether its use should be severely limited, if not eliminated.

• Previewed by William P. Weiner, associate dean for international, graduate, and extended programs at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Title VII holds an employer strictly liable for a supervisor=s sexually harassing conduct that culminates in a tangible employment action. In this case the Court must decide whether a constructive discharge caused by supervisory harassment is a tangible employment action for purposes of imposing strict liability.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The bright-line rule in New York v. Belton allows police to search the passenger compartment of an automobile and the containers in it incident to the arrest of a recent occupant. In this case, a police officer contacted and arrested Marcus Thornton after Thornton had parked and walked away from his car. He then searched the car and found a pistol. Now, the Court must decide whether to allow the search even though Thornton was not initially confronted by the officer while still in the automobile.

• Previewed by Michael Kaye, a professor of law at the Washburn University of Topeka Law School in Topeka, Kansas, and the director of the Washburn Center for Excellence in Advocacy.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision