Case at a Glance

The FDA and the U.S. Solicitor General square off with the tobacco industry over whether the federal agency has the authority to regulate tobacco products as drug delivery devices. The FDA has found that the nicotine in tobacco products is intended by manufacturers to be a sedative, stimulant, and appetite suppressant and that it therefore has jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Fourth Circuit disagreed and held that the FDA lacked jurisdiction over tobacco. The Supreme Court has now agreed to review that ruling.

• Previewed by Douglas W. Kmiec

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Public assistance to religious schools has bedeviled the Supreme Court for the past half-century. This case asks whether the neutral, nondiscriminatory provision of public equipment and instructional materials to both public and religious schools alike impermissibly unites church and state.

• Previewed by Douglas W. Kmiec

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

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court is asked to determine when a judge is required to explain to a jury in a death penalty case that the jury instructions do not mean that a death sentence is mandatory upon the finding of an aggravating factor, and when he must clarify that the jury should consider any mitigating evidence before making its sentencing decision.

• Previewed by Jay E. Grenig

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Guam Organic Act of 1950 requires a runoff election "if no candidates receive a majority of the votes cast in any election." The opposing candidates for governor and lieutenant governor in Guam disagree over whether that means a runoff is required whenever a candidate fails to win a majority of all the ballots cast in the entire general election, or whether it means a runoff is only required when the candidate fails to win a majority of the votes cast in the election for the particular office for which the candidate is running.

• Previewed by Judith Reed

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The United States is a party to various treaties that set uniform criteria for the design, construction, and operation of oil tankers. The State of Washington, relying on what it deems a waiver in a domestic statute known as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, has enacted more stringent requirements. The Court must decide whether Washington’s reading of the waiver is correct and, if it is, whether its regulations are permissible under international law.

• Previewed by Robert M. Jarvis

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1987, a driver’s side air bag was one of several passive restraint options from which auto manufacturers could choose in order to comply with Safety Standard 208 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. When an auto manufacturer selects one of the safety “options” for installation under Standard 208, does that compliance preempt an injured motorist from pursuing a subsequent lawsuit for a claimed design defect? The Supreme Court will decide.

• Previewed by Ralph Anzivino

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, “mandates a policy of broad disclosure of government documents.” This appeal asks whether the first exemption provision of FOIA, which shelters classified information, exempts the disclosure of a British government letter to the U.S. government dealing with the extradition of two criminal defendants from the United Kingdom as a matter that is “specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. ...”

• Previewed by Elliott B. Pollack

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Roy Lee Johnson was sentenced to three concurrent prison terms of four years and three months for drug convictions, and to two consecutive five-year terms for firearm convictions. He was also sentenced to a three-year term of supervised release. The defendant’s firearm convictions were later overturned and the defendant was released. The defendant now argues that his supervised release began on the day that he should have been released from prison. The United States argues that his supervised release began on the date he was actually released from prison.

• Previewed by Cindy Moy

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision