Case at a Glance

The Arkansas River serves many water users in the states of Colorado and Kansas. The current litigation is at least the fourth major effort in the last 100 years by these neighboring states to settle issues of Arkansas River water allocation between them. The nub of the current dispute is the proper administration and enforcement of a plan that has been devised to take account of the substantial amount of groundwater pumping in Colorado that affects the river's flow in Kansas.

• Previewed by Robert H. Abrams, a professor of law at Florida A & M University College of Law In Orlando, Fla.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Michigan does not allow most defendants pleading guilty an automatic appeal but instead allows them to apply for leave to appeal. No counsel is appointed to represent indigents seeking an appeal. This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the federal constitution requires Michigan to appoint counsel for these applications and whether attorneys seeking court appointments have standing to raise the indigents' rights.

• Previewed by Alan Raphael, an associate professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law in Chicago

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Last Term's Blakely v. Washington caused great turmoil in the federal courts. In striking down a Washington state sentencing provision because the judge rather than the jury found the aggravating factors that could increase the length of the sentence, did the Court effectively render the federal Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional, and if so, are the Guidelines altogether unconstitutional or can courts respond by simply "severing" the upward enhancement provisions and imposing just the sentences otherwise required by the Guidelines for particular offenses?

• Previewed by Vikram David Amar, a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of Law in San Francisco.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In construing federal trademark law's "fair use" defense, the Supreme Court is asked to determine how Congress balanced the harm resulting from a likelihood of confusion among consumers as to the source of a product with the harm resulting from competitors being unable to use another's mark to accurately describe their products.

• Previewed by Hugh C. Hansen, a professor of law at Fordham University School of Law in New York City.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In this case, the Court will resolve an ambiguity in the Truth in Lending Act and determine whether it imposes a $1,000 limitation on damages for technical violations of the Act involving automobile and other consumer loans.

• Previewed by Michael J. Collins, an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Washington, D.C.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A "Himalaya clause" limits the damages that an ocean carrier's agents, contractors, and employees must pay when goods transported under a bill of lading are damaged. In this case, the Court must decide whether a railroad may use the Himalaya clause negotiated between a steamship line and a freight forwarder to defend itself against a cargo owner's claim of negligence.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This case involves a dispute over environmental cleanup costs incurred at four aircraft engine maintenance facilities in Texas. A successor property owner, Aviall Services Inc., is seeking to recover an equitable share of its clean-up costs from the property's prior owner, Cooper Industries, Inc. The parties disagree as to whether Aviall can use the Superfund for this purpose even though it cleaned up its property voluntarily, after consultations with Texas state officials, without first litigating the issue with the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

• Previewed by Robert H. Abrams and Amy Kullenberg. Robert H. Abrams is a professor of law at the Florida A & M University College of Law in Orlando, Fla., where Amy Kullenberg is a third-year student.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") instituted removal proceedings against Haitian immigrant Josue Leocal after he pled guilty to driving under the influence and causing bodily injury. The INS asserted that the convictions were for "crimes of violence," making Leocal, a permanent resident of the U.S. since 1987, removable as an "aggravated felon." The Eleventh Circuit had previously held that DUI and causing bodily injury was a crime of violence under the relevant immigration statute, but the circuits are divided on this point.

• 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

Approximately 3,400 Somali nationals in the United States are subject to final deportation orders while another 4,850 Somalis are awaiting removal hearings. The petitioner in this case is a Somali national who has been detained by the INS since June 2000 and is seeking to prevent his removal to Somalia. He argues that he cannot be deported to that country until there is a functioning central government there that is capable of accepting his return.

• Previewed by Angelique Ortega Fridman, an assistant professor of law at Florida International University College of Law in Miami, Fla.

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Court's analysis of the Eighth Amendment looks at whether "evolving standards of decency" in American society render capital punishment "cruel and unusual" in some of its applications. This case asks whether these standards have evolved since the Court last took up the issue in 1989 and have rendered unconstitutional the execution of someone who committed murder as a juvenile (under 18 years of age). An additional issue is whether a state court can reach its own determination of whether a particular punishment is "cruel and unusual" when the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on that point.

• 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 2001, the Supreme Court interpreted an immigration statute that permits detention of removable aliens beyond the statutory 90-day removal period if it is "reasonably necessary to secure their removal." The Court set a presumptive six-month limit for such extended detention and further limited its holding to cases involving admitted aliens who later had their residency revoked. This case considers whether that limitation also applies to "excludable" aliens who have never gained permanent residency nor otherwise "entered" the country.

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

Case Highlights
Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision