Case at a Glance

The City of Toledo, Ohio, granted DaimlerChrysler Corporation property-tax and income-tax advantages to encourage it to construct a new $1.2 billion Jeep assembly plant in the city. Taxpayers have challenged the constitutionality of these incentives under both the federal Constitution=s Commerce Clause and the Ohio state constitution. Both issues in the case now before the Court—whether the taxpayers have standing and whether the tax incentives violate the Commerce Clause—lack clear answers and precedents.

• Previewed by Ferdinand P. Schoettle, a visiting professor of law at George Mason Law School in Arlington, Virginia.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Eleventh Amendment shields states from admiralty claims. Local governments also are protected, but only when acting as an "arm of the state." In this case involving a county lacking such status, the Court must decide whether there additionally exists "residual" sovereign immunity.

• Previewed by Robert M. Jarvis, a professor of law at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read the decision

Case at a Glance

In 2003, the Republican-controlled Texas legislature redrew the lines for its 32 congressional districts. The redistricting plan replaced a court-drawn plan, which was enacted following the 2000 census and the legislature's inability to draw its own plan. Various plaintiffs challenged the plan on the grounds that it: violated the one-person, one-vote requirement; constituted an impermissible political gerrymander; diluted the votes of voters of color in violation of the Voting Rights Act; and that mid-decade redistricting violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

• Previewed by Guy-Uriel E. Charles is a visiting professor at Columbia Law School and a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court interpreted the Confrontation Clause to bar "testimonial evidence" but to allow admission of out-of court statements when the maker of the statement is unavailable to testify at trial and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him or her. The Crawford Court did not define the term "testimonial." Together with Hammon v. Indiana, No. 05-5705, this case asks the Court to decide whether a victim's report of a crime to a 911 operator or police investigator is "testimonial" under Crawford.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court interpreted the Confrontation Clause to bar "testimonial evidence" but to allow admission of out-of court statements when the maker of the statement is unavailable to testify at trial and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him or her. The Crawford Court did not define the term "testimonial." Together with Davis v. Washington, Docket No. 05-5224, this case asks the Court to decide whether a victim's report of a crime to a 911 operator or police investigator is "testimonial" under Crawford.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Under the Bankruptcy Code, several categories of claims have "priority," a right to payment before any distribution of the debtors' assets with respect to lower-ranked claims. One Code section confers priority on "allowed unsecured claims for contributions to an employee benefit plan … arising from services rendered within 180 days before the date of the filing of the [bankruptcy] petition." Does that include a claim against a bankrupt employer for premiums due under a workers' compensation insurance policy covering the debtor's employees during that period?

• Previewed by John P. Hennigan, Jr., a professor of law at St. John's University School of Law in New York City.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A natural phenomenon (a so-called law of nature) is not patentable, but a process that applies the same phenomenon is patentable. The phenomenon that metal conducts electricity: unpatentable. The process of conducting electricity though wiring: patentable. The line between a patentable process and an unpatentable phenomenon is very hard to draw. The distinction has bedeviled the courts for over 150 years. The patent here recites a correlation between blood homocysteine levels and vitamin deficiencies. Patentable process or, unpatentable natural phenomenon?

• Previewed by Craig Steven Jepson, a patent attorney and a professor teaching biotechnology law, patent law, and patent practice courses at Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The petitioner, a Mexican national, was deported in 1981 and unlawfully reentered the United States in 1982. In 2001, he married a U.S. citizen, and attempted to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Two years later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement reinstated his 1981 deportation order pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996. The Supreme Court will decide whether the provision applies to individuals who were deported and reentered prior to the effective date of the statute.

• Previewed by Jennifer M. Chacon, a professor at the U.C. Davis School of Law in Davis, California.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, enacted in 1996, requires that prisoners, including jail inmates and incarcerated juveniles, exhaust "available" administrative remedies. Prison grievance procedures typically set very short deadlines for the filing of a grievance, sometimes five days or less. The Supreme Court will decide in this case whether a prisoner who has filed a grievance, though not within the timelines set by prison officials, has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, thereby foreclosing court adjudication of the prisoner's constitutional claims.

• Previewed by Lynn S. Branham is a professor of law at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan, and coauthor of The Law and Policy of Sentencing and Corrections (7th ed.).

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court examines prisoners' First Amendment challenges under a rational-basis standard the Court has described as "not toothless." In this case, the Court may well determine just how much bite is in its standard, as it examines a policy that restricts even family photographs from inmates housed in a segregation unit. To make matters even more interesting, the Court is reviewing a divided federal appeals panel decision of which its newest member—Justice Samuel Alito—was the dissenting voice.

• Previewed by David Hudson, a research attorney at the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University and an instructor at Nashville School of Law and Middle Tennessee State University.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The federal RICO statute—28 U.S.C. § 1964(c)—creates a private right of action for treble damages for any person "injured in his business or property by reason of" a RICO violation. The question in this case is whether the "by reason of" requirement is satisfied when the alleged RICO violation is based on mail fraud and the plaintiff-competitor was not the party defrauded and did not rely on the defendant's alleged fraudulent behavior.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This case concerns the question left unresolved by the Supreme Court's 2002 opinion in Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson: Is a constructive trust or an equitable lien available as an equitable remedy under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA?

• Previewed by Colleen E. Medill, a professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law and the author of Introduction to Employee Benefits Law: Policy and Practice (Thomson-West 2004).

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court will follow its significant rulings in 2004 with a decision that affects the enforceability of habeas petitions for over 300 Guantanamo Bay detainees, tests the legality of military commissions, and navigates the outer-limits of presidential power in the so-called "War on Terror."

• Previewed by Alamdar S. Hamdani, a partner with the law firm of Borunda & Hamdani, LLP, in Houston Texas.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Two foreign nationals convicted in U.S. courts challenge their convictions based on the failure of arresting authorities to notify them of their rights under the Vienna Convention to contact the consulate of their home country. One of the foreign nationals argues that the Vienna Convention violation should have resulted in suppression of incriminating statements made to police. The other foreign national argues that he should be able to assert the Vienna Convention violation in a habeas proceeding.

• Previewed by Paul J. Martinek, the former publisher and editor-in-chief of Lawyers Weekly USA.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

When a defendant is found to have infringed a valid patent, the Patent Act provides that a court may grant an injunction to prevent the violation of the patent. The Federal Circuit held that a district court must grant a permanent injunction unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Supreme Court will consider whether a court must weigh several equitable factors, including whether the patentee faces irreparable injury and whether an injunction is in the public interest, before granting a permanent injunction.

• Previewed by David C. Berry, an associate professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Rochester, Michigan, and a director of Cooley's graduate program in Intellectual Property and Technology Law.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision