Case at a Glance

This case spotlights the relationship between consent decrees and the Eleventh Amendment. It asks whether state officials waive their sovereign immunity by entering into a consent decree that is enforceable in federal court, and if no waiver occurs, whether a federal court can enforce the decree only to the extent that it enforces clear, preexisting federal rights.

• Previewed by Keenan Kmiec, an articles editor at the California Law Review at the University of California (Boalt Hall) in Berkeley, California.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Maryland asserted authority to regulate a water withdrawal by Virginia from that portion of the Potomac River that forms the state boundary between those two states. The project that led to this lawsuit was to be built on the Virginia side of the river with an intake extending across the recognized boundary into Maryland's portion of the river. While the specific project eventually was approved by Maryland, Virginia now seeks a judgment that declares her free of Maryland's regulatory jurisdiction in such cases.

• Previewed by Robert Abrams, a professor of law at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit, Michigan.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Under the Clean Air Act, many states are delegated authority to make permitting decisions, including determining the "best available control technology" (BACT) for new or modified major pollutant-emitting facilities in areas with clean air. In this case, the Supreme Court addresses the question of whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can issue a stop-construction and noncompliance order based on what it finds to be an unreasonable BACT decision made by the State of Alaska, which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act.

• Previewed by Marisa Martin, a staff attorney with the Wyoming Outdoor Council in Lander, Wyoming.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

When a former employee sought to be rehired by a missile systems company after being allowed to "quit in lieu of discharge" for testing positive for cocaine, he learned that the company had an "unwritten policy" of never rehiring employees it had terminated for violating company rules. The Supreme Court is now asked to decide whether the Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to consider rehiring rehabilitated former employees who are now drug-free and applying for a new job.

• Previewed by Michael Kurs, a partner in the Hartford, Connecticut, office of Pullman and Comley, LLC.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Claimants seeking benefits under the Social Security Act need to show that their impairments are so severe that they can neither do their previous work nor engage in any other kind of "substantial gainful work" that exists in "significant numbers" in the "national economy." In this case the Social Security Administration denied benefits on the grounds that the claimant is physically able to perform her previous job as an elevator operator. The claimant objects that that occupation has essentially vanished.

• Previewed by Jay E. Grenig, a professor of law at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was intended to open telecommunications to competition, requires "incumbent" carriers (those who were legal monopolies when the Act was passed), to share their facilities and services with their competitors at discounted rates. The question before the Court is whether enforcement under antitrust law is appropriate when a statute creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme to deal with unilateral conduct by a monopoly.

• Previewed by Robert D. Yates, a legal editor and writer in Evanston, Illinois.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This case asks the Supreme Court to clarify an issue basic to the execution of warrants under the Fourth Amendment. The Court will be asked to determine whether a forcible entry made 15 - 20 seconds after the police announce their presence in executing a warrant and receive no response should be considered "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment; and if not, what should be the consequences.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act generally bars federal prisoners from using successive habeas petitions to attack their convictions. But U.S. district courts on their own sometimes rename post-conviction motions as habeas petitions. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether AEDPA bars a later habeas petition even if the prisoner was unaware of the AEDPA consequences at the time he filed his earlier post-conviction motion.

• Previewed by Michael Kaye, a professor of law at Washburn University of Topeka Law School in Topeka, Kansas.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision