Case at a Glance

In bankruptcy cases, creditors commonly identify themselves by filing a proof of claim, which is automatically allowed unless another party objects. Even with an objection, allowance is mandated until the objector produces evidence against the claim. After that, however, there is disagreement over which side has the ultimate burden of persuading the court. Most often, that burden falls upon the would-be creditor, as it usually does in non-bankruptcy litigation. Under both federal and state tax laws, however, the taxpayer must in some situations disprove liability. The courts are divided on whether that special allocation of the burden should be followed in bankruptcy court proceedings on whether to allow a tax claim.

• Previewed by John P. Hennigan, Jr., professor of law at St. John’s University School of Law in Jamaica, N.Y.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In this case, the Court will determine whether nonfiduciary "parties in interest" that participate in transactions prohibited by ERISA may be held liable under the statute. The Seventh Circuit held that these parties are not subject to liability under ERISA, but other circuits disagree.

• Previewed by Michael J. Collins, an attorney with Groom Law Group, Chartered, in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Can Congress constitutionally impose a stay on an injunction if a court does not rule on a motion to terminate the injunction within the time period Congress has prescribed? Unless it skirts this question through its construction of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s automatic-stay provision, the Supreme Court will resolve that significant separation-of-powers issue in this case.

• Previewed by Lynn S. Branham, visiting professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Ill.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether a federal court is bound by a state court’s determination that a defendant is ineligible for parole when determining whether the defendant has a right to inform the jurors that, if they spare his life, state law forbids him from ever being released from prison.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1966, the Supreme Court held in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), that a statement made by a suspect during custodial interrogation would not be admissible unless the police had first informed him of his right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. Further, the police would have to show that the suspect understood his rights and voluntarily decided to make a statement. In this case, the Court must decide whether the Fourth Circuit erred in ruling that a statement taken without complying with Miranda but in accordance with a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda should be admitted in evidence.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A federal trial court denied the defendant’s request that it instruct the jury that bank larceny is a lesser-included offense of bank robbery. The Third Circuit declined to follow the majority of the circuits that have considered this issue and ruled that bank larceny is not a lesser-included offense because it contains statutory elements not found in the bank robbery prohibition. The Supreme Court has agreed to resolve this split among the circuits.

• Previewed by Cindy Moy, an attorney and legal affairs writer in Golden Valley, Minn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The defendants were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), which punishes the use of a firearm in a federal crime of violence. Use of a "firearm" subjects a defendant to imprisonment for five years; use of a "machinegun" carries a 30-year term. Although the jury in this case was not asked to determine the type of firearms the defendants used, the judge sentenced them to 30 years' imprisonment. Did the judge err in treating the type of firearm as a sentencing factor rather than as an element of the offense?

• Previewed by Sherri L. Knuth, an attorney and legal affairs writer in St. Paul, Minn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 198, which changed the state election process from a closed primary to a blanket primary. In a closed primary, only registered voters of a party can vote in that party’s primary. In a blanket primary, any voter can "cross over" and vote for any party in the primary election. While California contends that the new law enhances the democratic process, four political parties contend that it infringes on their free association rights.

• Previewed by David L. Hudson, Jr., an attorney with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Nebraska, like 30 other states, prohibits the abortion procedure described as "partial-birth abortion" in state legislation and as "D & X abortion" by abortion providers. Abortion providers argue this ban constitutes an undue burden on a woman’s decision whether to terminate her pregnancy. The law's supporters say the procedure is particularly cruel and medically unneeded. Once again, the Court grapples with the politically and morally divisive abortion issue, though this time the subject is not the right, itself, but its scope.

• Previewed by Douglas W. Kmiec, professor of Law at Pepperdine University Law School in Malibu, Calif.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In this latest proceeding in an original action filed in the Supreme Court in 1952 to determine water rights in the Colorado River, the issue is whether the Quechan Indian Tribe is precluded from asserting water rights for certain "boundary lands" of the Fort Yuma Reservation in Arizona and California.

• Previewed by Judith V. Royster, professor of law and co-director of the Native American Law Program at the University of Tulsa in Tulsa, Okla.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The state Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that the Boy Scouts could not discriminate against an avowed homosexual and former Eagle Scout who wanted to serve as an Assistant Scoutmaster. The United States Supreme Court’s review of that decision will have a lot to say about how state public accommodation laws should be applied under the Constitution to private organizations and associations that often consist of members of a single sex, ethnicity or religion.

• Previewed by Thomas E. Baker, professor of law and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Drake University Law School in Des Moines, Iowa.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision
More information about this case is available in Cases of Interest to the School Community.