Case at a Glance

The trial counsel for the defendant in this capital murder case had previously represented the homicide victim. The judge who appointed the attorney to represent the defendant should have known that the defense lawyer had a potential conflict of interest. The Supreme Court is now asked to reconsider several of its recent precedents regarding attorney conflict of interest in order to determine whether in these circumstances the trial violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to adequate assistance of counsel.

• Previewed by Alan Raphael, associate professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law; araphae@luc.edu or (312) 915-7140.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Supreme Court precedent requires court appointment of counsel for any indigent defendant who wants a lawyer in felony cases, and in misdemeanor cases in which the defendant is sentenced to any incarceration. In this case, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a defendant was denied the right to counsel when, upon conviction, he was sentenced to a jail term of 30 days, which the trial court immediately suspended. It is debatable whether the Alabama ruling was required by U.S. Supreme Court precedents. This case allows the Supreme Court to reconsider the wisdom and scope of its prior rulings.

• Previewed by Alan Raphael, associate professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law; araphae@luc.edu or (312) 915-7140.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A district court failed to advise a defendant who was represented by counsel at his guilty plea hearing that he also had a right to the assistance of counsel at trial. The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether this omission is subject to “plain error” review on appeal even if the defendant failed to preserve that claim of error in the district court.

• Previewed by Jay E. Grenig, a professor of law at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wis. and a co-author of West’s Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (5th ed.).

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A condition in a probation agreement required a probationer to submit himself and his property to a search “at any time, with or without a search warrant” by “any probation officer or law enforcement officer.” The question presented is whether a subsequent warrantless search of the probationer’s apartment by a law enforcement officer for investigative rather than probationary purposes violates the Fourth Amendment.

• Previewed by Ian Heath Gershengorn, a partner with Jenner & Block, LLC in Washington, D.C., where he concentrates on Supreme Court and appellate litigation.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Ella Williams has been diagnosed as having carpal tunnel syndrome and various related conditions. Among other things, her doctor has told her not to do overhead work and not to use vibratory or pneumatic tools, and has advised her to avoid the constant repetitive use of her hands and arms and to keep her hands below heart level. The Supreme Court has now agreed to review the Sixth Circuit’s determination that these limitations amount to a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

• Previewed by Michael Kurs and Elliott B. Pollack. Michael Kurs is an attorney who practices in the areas of health care, administrative law, and litigation in the Hartford, Conn., office of Pullman & Comley, LLC. Elliott B. Pollack is co-chair of the Health Care Section at Pullman & Comley and a member of the adjunct faculty of the University of Connecticut School of Law.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1992, Congress passed the Coal Act, which established a benefit fund to ensure the continued provision of health-care benefits to retired miners. The act directs the Commissioner of Social Security to assign responsibility for beneficiaries of the fund to the "signatory operator" or "related person" of the signatory operator that formerly employed the miners, if that signatory operator or related person is still in business. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether the SSA can assign responsibility for retired miners’ health benefits to the successor in interest of a defunct employer.

• Previewed by David J. Laurent, a shareholder with the law firm Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. in Pittsburgh, Pa.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits against states in federal court unless the state consents or Congress expressly abrogates immunity in order to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Here, state age-discrimination claims were denied federal supplemental jurisdiction, and when claimants then filed in state court, they were dismissed as untimely--despite the supplemental jurisdiction statute’s 30-day tolling provision. This case asks if Eleventh Amendment immunity prohibits applying the supplemental jurisdiction statute’s tolling provision to state limitation periods.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The State of South Carolina presented testimony that William Kelly had been belligerent and violent in prison, allowing his sentencing jury to infer that his behavior would continue if he was someday released from prison. When requested, the trial court refused to instruct Kelly’s jury that he would be ineligible for parole if sentenced to life imprisonment. Kelly now asks the Court to hold that the state implicitly raised the issue of his future dangerousness, thus triggering the need for a parole ineligibility instruction.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, deputy director of the Cooley Innocence Project and a visiting professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Border Patrol agents on the 2,000-mile U.S-Mexico border face formidable problems enforcing immigration and narcotics laws. But beyond the immediate area of the border, efforts to intercept suspicious vehicles must meet Fourth Amendment standards of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. In this case, the Court is asked to decide whether a Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop a motorist driving a back road 30 miles from the border on a route and at a time frequented by alien smugglers.

• 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

The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, requires educational institutions to preserve the confidentiality of education records. The question before the Court is whether this requirement prohibits teachers in pre-secondary public schools from having students exchange their homework papers, quizzes, and tests and mark the correct and incorrect answers as the teacher goes over the answers out loud in class.

• Previewed by Joseph L. Daly, the Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Chair in Litigation Practice and Alternative Dispute Resolution at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Communications Decency Act, the government’s previous attempt to protect minors from online pornography, was struck down in 1997 on the grounds that it required Internet content to be judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by it. Now the Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of the new Child Online Protection Act, which seeks to address the Court’s free-speech concerns by regulating Web communications in a manner similar to existing laws restricting minors’ access to print pornography.

• Previewed by Susanna Frederick Fischer, an assistant professor of law at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision
More information about this case is available in Cases of Interest to the School Community.

Case at a Glance

Kansas prison officials recommended that sex-offender Robert Lile participate in a sex-offender treatment program while in prison. Under the program, inmates must sign an admission of guilt and disclose their sexual histories. However, the program fails to provide confidentiality, and inmates can be prosecuted for their admissions. When Lile refused to reveal his sexual history, prison officials sought to take away many of his privileges and to transfer him to maximum security.

• 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