Case at a Glance

The state of Maryland seeks review of a pretrial ruling suppressing a murder defendant=s statements to police as having been obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona. The Maryland court held that the police had unconstitutionally reinitiated questioning of a suspect who had asserted his Miranda right to counsel, and that a later interrogation following the suspect's request was tainted by that earlier improper state action.

• 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

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the federal government to demonstrate that it is using the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling a state interest when it imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the uniform enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act and treaty obligations justify prohibiting members of a small religious group from the sacramental use of hoasca tea, which contains a hallucinogenic controlled substance.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Challenges to the legal sufficiency of evidence may be raised at trial before or after a jury verdict by bringing either a motion for pre- or post-verdict judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 or a motion for new trial under Rule 59. But may a party who brings and is denied a pre-verdict motion and who then loses the jury verdict, appeal the legal sufficiency of the evidence in the absence of either a post-verdict or new trial motion?

• Previewed by Mary Phelan D'Isa, a professor at the T.M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

James Lockhart took out $87,000 in student loans between 1984 and 1989, and was unable to repay the loans. In 2002, the Department of Education, which finances student loans, certified the delinquent loans to the Treasury Department, which, under its administrative offset program, began to deduct a portion of Lockhart's Social Security benefits to recoup the delinquencies. Lockhart sued, claiming that the imposition of the offsets violated the 10-year limitation on the collection of debt under the Debt Collection Act.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Federal Tort Claims Act generally waives the United States's sovereign immunity. One exception to the waiver is the Postal Exception, which preserves sovereign immunity for "any claim arising out of loss, miscarriage or the negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." The issue is whether the Postal Exception covers claims that result only from lost or damaged mail, or whether it also cover a personal injury claim that arises from the negligent delivery of the mail.

• Previewed by Ralph Anzivino, a professor at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In Martin, the Supreme Court is asked to determine the appropriate legal standard to award attorney fees when a federal court remands a case to state court. This case provides the Court with an opportunity to clarify the discretionary availability of an attorney fee award after congressional amendment of the federal removal statute in 1988.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

When police have valid consent to search a house, neither a warrant nor probable cause is necessary. This case asks the Court whether police have the valid consent needed to search a home when one occupant consents but another who is also present objects.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is comprehensive legislation designed to eliminate barriers that in the past have kept persons with disabilities from full participation in our nation=s society and economy. This case presents the question whether state prisoners with disabilities (as defined by ADA) may sue the state for damages if their rights under ADA have been violated by correctional authorities.

• Previewed by Stanley E. Adelman a professor of law at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and the University of Tulsa in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The question presented in this case concerns how federal courts should deal with a habeas petition when the prison warden claims it was untimely filed in state court but the state court's denial sheds no light on how it viewed that issue. The Ninth Circuit ruled that in these circumstances the federal courts should presume that the state court denied the petition on the merits rather than on the basis that the petition was untimely.

• Previewed by Elizabeth B. Wydra, an attorney specializing in appellate litigation at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP in San Francisco, California.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

After concluding that federal customs officials who seized computers from Susan Hallock's home office were not subject to suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a federal district court judge dismissed her FTCA suit. Hallock then sought to bring another type of action against the officials. The Supreme Court has been called on to answer whether the jurisdictional dismissal of the FTCA claim constitutes a final "judgment" that bars all subsequent suits against the federal officers.

• Previewed by Mark A. Cohen, the editor-in-chief of Minnesota Lawyer in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The federal diversity statute gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over suits between citizens of different states when the claim exceeds $75,000. Section 1348 of the statute provides that for purposes of most civil actions, national banking associations are citizens of the states in which they are "located." The question for diversity purposes is whether such associations are "located' in any state in which they operate a branch office or whether "located" denotes a more limited citizenship.

• Previewed by Mary Phelan D'Isa, a professor at the T.M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A company that "ties" together two products forces a consumer who wishes to buy one product to purchase a second item as well. One of the crucial issues facing a plaintiff alleging a tying arrangement is whether the defendant has market power in the market for the "tying" (or desired) product. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether to reconsider its longstanding presumption of market power in the tying product market based solely on the existence of a patent.

• Previewed by Michael A. Carrier, an associate professor of law at Rutgers University School of Law in Camden, New Jersey.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court promulgated the Aseparability doctrine,@ pursuant to which arbitration clauses are deemed severable from their underlying contracts and therefore not affected by the latter=s illegality or fraud. In this case, the Court is being asked to reconsider its holding.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The lawsuit underlying this case began in 1986, when NOW charged that, in the course of blockading abortion clinics, Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups were violating the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The case has been to the Supreme Court twice before; this time the Court has agreed to consider whether the plaintiffs could establish the necessary pattern of "predicate" crimes for RICO purposes by showing that the defendants had interfered with commerce through threats or violence unrelated to robbery or extortion.

• Previewed by Martha Davis, an associate professor at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, Massachusetts.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

New Hampshire's Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act requires physicians to notify a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor. An exception to this requirement provides that no notice is necessary when an abortion is necessary to prevent the pregnant minor's death. The First Circuit held this statute unconstitutional because it failed to include a broader health exception to the parental notice requirement.

• Previewed by Vikram David Amar, a professor, and Kelly Vincent O'Donnell, a student, at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision