Case at a Glance

A trucking company and the state of Michigan are in a high-stakes dispute over whether registration fees are owed for certain trucks traveling through the state. Yellow Transportation says the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act relieves the company of paying for these trucks because pursuant to a reciprocity arrangement, Michigan did not seek fees for them as of the law's cutoff date of Nov. 15, 1991.

• Previewed by Steve Lash, a Potomac, Md., lawyer who has written extensively on the U.S. Supreme Court for numerous publications.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This case presents a straight-forward clash over one of the most fundamental requirements for establishing federal diversity jurisdiction: namely, how to calculate the $75,000 jurisdictional amount required for federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Court is asked to sort out the multiple, confusing, and quirky rules that have developed over 200 years of federal jurisprudence. Adding spice to the "how do we count?" mix, the Court has the added challenge of explaining how the amount-in-controversy rules apply in the class action context.

• Previewed by Linda S. Mullenix, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law; and the author of STATE CLASS ACTIONS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (CCH 2 vols. 2000) and MASS TORT LITIGATION (West Group 1996).

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The FCC awards some radio spectrum licenses on the basis of competitive auctions. FCC regulations provide for cancellation of the licenses if the amount bid is not paid when due. During the past five years, several licensees have filed bankruptcy and then claimed that § 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code protects them from such cancellation. Section 525(a) bars governmental units from revoking a license held by a bankrupt debtor "solely because such … debtor … has not paid a debt that is dischargeable" in the bankruptcy case.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Coal Act provides that the Social Security Administration "shall" assign retired miners and their beneficiaries to companies no later than October 1, 1993. The government now contends that despite that statutory language, Congress did not mean that the SSA could not assign beneficiaries later than October 1. Thus the Court once again must take up the issue of whether relatively clear statutory language should take precedence over Congress' likely intent when it enacted a statute.

• Previewed by Michael J. Collins, an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, in Denver, Colorado.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1998, Congress extended the term of copyright protection for all works by 20 years. The Supreme Court is asked to determine (1) if this extension goes beyond the power granted to Congress in the "copyright and patents" clause of the Constitution and (2) whether the extension violates the First Amendment. The case is important because of what it will say about the Court's view of constitutional limitations on congressional power. In addition, if petitioners succeed, it will remove copyright protection for a large number of works that are currently protected.

• Previewed by Hugh C. Hansen, a professor of law at Fordham University School of Law in New York City and the founder and director of the Fordham Annual Conference on International Intellectual Property Law and Policy.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This case presents the issue of whether a court or an arbitrator should determine whether a securities claim is arbitrable when the arbitration rules provide that no claim "shall be eligible for submission to arbitration ... where six ... years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the act or dispute, claim or controversy.".

• Previewed by Jay E. Grenig, a professor of law at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee and the author of West's Alternative Dispute Resolution with Forms (2nd edition).

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This appeal presents the Court with a deceptively simple but extremely important issue relating to the federal courts' ability to protect federal nationwide class action settlements. Essentially, the Court must resolve whether the All Writs Act functions to "caulk up" gaps in federal jurisdiction by permitting the removal of state actions to federal court in order to preserve the integrity of a previously negotiated federal class action settlement.

• Previewed by Linda S. Mullenix, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law; and the author of STATE CLASS ACTIONS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (CCH 2 vols. 2000) and MASS TORT LITIGATION (West Group 1996).

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate safety standards for recreational boats. The secretary delegated this regulatory authority to the United States Coast Guard, which decided not to require engine propeller guards. After Rex Sprietsma's wife died in a boating accident, he filed a wrongful death action against the manufacturer for failing to install propeller guards. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Coast Guard's decision not to require propeller guards preempts Sprietsma's state common-law suit.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Federal law prohibits a person convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in jail from possessing a firearm, but 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) allows the Treasury Secretary to make exceptions and provides for a review of denials in federal court. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide if Congress, by defunding the Secretary's ability to investigate and act on individual cases, has rescinded the right to judicial review.

• 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

In 1986 a Dallas County, Texas, jury convicted Thomas Joe Miller-El of murder and sentenced him to death. He asserts that the federal appellate court, which refused to consider his appeal from denial of a petition for habeas corpus, improperly applied existing precedent forbidding racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges and incorrectly interpreted federal law when it declined to allow his appeal to proceed.

• Previewed by Alan Raphael, an associate professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and the author of a recently published casebook, Criminal Procedure (Lupus 2001).

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision