Case at a Glance

In these two consolidated tax cases, the Court must decide whether a plaintiff who hires his attorney on a contingency fee basis must include the attorney's fee portion of his recovery in gross income (leaving him with a deduction for the attorney's fees paid) or, alternatively, whether he may exclude the attorney's fee portion of the recovery from gross income altogether. Because of the alternative minimum tax, how this issue is resolved may have significant federal income tax consequences for certain plaintiffs.

• Previewed by Gregg D. Polsky, an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School in Minneapolis, Minn.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Jones Act allows workers with an "employment related connection to a vessel in navigation" to bring negligence claims against their employers for injuries sustained in the course of their employment. In this case, the Court must decide whether a dredge constitutes a vessel in navigation for Jones Act purposes.

• Previewed by Steven R. Swanson, a professor of law at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minn.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1985, Joe Elton Nixon was convicted in absentia of a capital crime and sentenced to death. At trial, counsel conceded Nixon's guilt, presumably as part of an overall strategy to save his client's life. Nixon claims that counsel's so-called strategy constituted a constructive denial of the right to counsel, and that he should be given a new trial. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with Nixon, and the state now contests that ruling.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In the California state prison system, new arrivals and transferees from one facility to another are temporarily segregated by race in double cells for up to two months while they are evaluated and processed to their permanent housing assignment. An African American prisoner filed a pro se lawsuit challenging this discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He is asking the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional.

• Previewed by Thomas E. Baker, a professor at Florida International University College of Law in Miami, Fla.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Federal law makes it a crime for a person who has been "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" to possess a firearm. The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether convictions entered in foreign countries can trigger this provision.

• Previewed by Rachel A. Van Cleave, the J. Hadley Edgar Professor of Law at Texas Tech University School of Law in Lubbock, Texas.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

For years, the courts of appeals have been divided over whether plaintiffs suing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 can pursue disparate impact claims. In 1993, the Court mentioned but did not decide the controversy. In 2002, many thought the Court would resolve the issue when it agreed to review Adams v. Florida Power Corp., but it instead dismissed the writ of certiorari as "improvidently granted." 535 U.S. 228 (2002). Now the Court appears ready to decide the issue.

• Previewed by David L. Hudson, Jr., a First Amendment and employment law attorney based in Nashville, Tenn.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

On a public road, Alford was arrested for secretly tape recording the officer questioning him. After the charge was dismissed for lack of probable cause, he brought civil rights claims against the arresting officers. A jury denied the claims and the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that there were no other "closely related offenses" for which Alford might have been arrested, and that the officers lacked qualified immunity.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) mandates a minimum sentence for felons with prior convictions for violent felonies. The Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) requires federal sentencing courts to examine the statutory elements, charging instrument and jury instructions to determine whether prior convictions trigger the mandatory minimum sentence under the ACCA. The question in this case is whether the sentencing court can examine a court file to determine whether a guilty plea was sufficient to trigger the enhancement.

• Previewed by Mary L. Boland, a briefing supervisor in the Criminal Appeals Division of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, and Alan J. Spellberg, Supervisor of Complex Appellate Litigation in the Criminal Appeals Division of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Under intergovernmental agreements with the Department of Health and Human Services, Indian tribes have not received sufficient funding to cover the indirect costs of administering federal Indian programs. Must HHS use funds appropriated as part of a lump-sum appropriation (but not earmarked for a specific use) to meet its obligation to pay indirect "contract support" costs?

• Previewed by Christopher Karns, a partner in the Indian Law Practice Group of Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Washington, D.C.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This is an appeal by three defendants who were convicted of violating the wire fraud statute by using interstate telephone wires to arrange for the purchase of alcohol in the United States and the transport of it to Canada. This alleged fraud operated to deprive the Canadian government of taxes due it under Canadian law. Defendants argue the common-law revenue rule and other laws prohibit their prosecution for wire fraud, because a court in the United States cannot enforce foreign tax laws.

• Previewed by Davalene Cooper, a professor of law at New England School of Law in Boston, Mass.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide what level of justification, if any, is needed to conduct a drug-detection dog sniff of an automobile lawfully stopped for a traffic violation.

• Previewed by Mark M. Dobson, a professor of law at the Nova Southeastern University Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1981, Payton presented his capital jury with post-crime information about his conversion to Christianity. The jury nonetheless sentenced him to death. He argued at the time and on appeal in the state courts that the California sentencing scheme restricted the jury's consideration of that evidence. The California Supreme Court rejected that argument, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed. Under the federal Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Court must now decide which court was correct.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Congress says that marijuana is an illegal drug. Period. No "ifs, ands, or butts" (pun intended). California and nine other states say that compassionate use of the drug can be authorized by a physician to relieve a patient suffering in extremis symptoms. The Supreme Court will decide who gets the final say.

• Previewed by Thomas E. Baker, a professor at Florida International University College of Law in Miami, Florida, where he teaches the Honors Section of Constitutional Law.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980), the Court ruled that a state may not refuse to instruct a capital jury on a lesser included non-capital offense—assuming the evidence would support such a verdict. Now the Court is asked whether a Mississippi court's refusal to instruct Marlon Latodd Howell's jury on "simple murder" violates Beck and whether Howell properly presented this constitutional claim to the Mississippi Supreme Court in accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1257.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court's resolution of this case will resolve a circuit split on the issue of whether proof of an overt act is required in order to establish the crime of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The Eleventh Circuit in this case joined the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit in holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) does not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the money laundering conspiracy.

• Previewed by Elizabeth B. Wydra, a fellow at the Appellate Litigation Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Title IX requires gender equality in federally funded educational programs; it is unclear, however, whether the statute also protects those who complain that programs are violating this equality mandate. This case will provide the answer to that question.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision