Case at a Glance

Under the general federal venue statute, a plaintiff in the federal courts frequently has a choice of district courts in which to sue, a fact of tactical importance to many litigants. The Federal Arbitration Act, however, provides that an action to confirm or vacate an arbitration award “may” be brought in the district where the award was made. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether this means that such an action may be brought only in that district.

• Previewed by John J. Cannon

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision. 

Case at a Glance

The hallmark principle of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause is that government officials must treat similarly situated individuals equally. Traditionally, the clause has shielded members of a "suspect class" (i.e., persons singled out on account of their race) against government discrimination. The case of Village of Willowbrook v. Olech presents the high Court with the question of whether the equal protection clause should protect an individual from allegedly arbitrary, vindictive government action even if he or she is not a member of an identifiable suspect class.

• Previewed by David L. Hudson Jr.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The alleged rape of a young college student by two Virginia Tech football players has precipitated a major battle over the scope of Congress’ legislative power to regulate interstate commerce and pass remedial legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s immediate focus in this case will be on the constitutionality of section 13981 of the Violence Against Women Act, which creates a cause of action against private individuals for gender-motivated violence. But the modern calibration of the state-federal balance is the genuine and highly disputed matter in issue.

• Previewed by Douglas W. Kmiec

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Robert L. Jones received a life sentence for murder in 1974 and a second life sentence for a separate murder in 1982. At the time Jones committed both offenses, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles had a rule requiring it to hold hearings every three years to reconsider its initial denials of parole. However, in 1986, the Board amended this rule to lengthen the time for reconsideration to every eight years. The Supreme Court will now consider whether the Board's application of this amended rule to Jones violated the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause.

• Previewed by Rachel A. Van Cleave

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Like all 50 states, the state of Washington has enacted laws authorizing grandparents to seek a court order granting them the right to visit their grandchildren. The Petitioners in this case are grandparents who sought and obtained such an order only to see it invalidated by the Supreme Court of Washington, which struck the states' third-party visitation laws on constitutional grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to decide whether the state court erred in concluding that the statutes violated the parents' fundamental right to autonomy in child-rearing decisions.

• Previewed by David L. Hudson, Jr.

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 California Legislature in 1955 added § 24344 to the California Revenue and Taxation Code. Among other things, the new section restricts interest deductions on the California income tax return according to the presence of two types of income: (1) interest income appropriately taxed by California and (2) dividend and interest income that California normally would not be entitled to tax. This case is about the constitutionality of the second restriction, which Taxpayer Hunt-Wesson, Inc. contends discriminates against out-of-state taxpayers.

• Previewed by Ferdinand P. Schoettle

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A taxpayer is seeking a refund of his excess withholding and estimated tax payments for 1988. His problem is that he did not file his federal income tax return for that year until 1993. It has been thought well-settled that the three-year statute of limitations on refunds of withholding and estimated federal tax payments runs from April 15 of the year following the taxable year. The Supreme Court, however, has now agreed to review the taxpayer's claim that the limitations period does not begin to run until after the return itself is filed, when the IRS actually applies the withholding and estimated payments in satisfaction of a tax liability.

• Previewed by Lawrence Lokken

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Two post-verdict motions are available to a losing party: a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial. Both take the judgment away from the jury: the former gives the judgment to the losing party; the latter allows a new trial. Both are discretionary with the trial judge. Here, the trial judge denied a losing defendant both motions after a jury verdict for the plaintiff. The appellate court reviewed the record, cited improperly admitted expert testimony, and ordered the trial court to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that the proper remedy is a new trial.

• Previewed by Mary Phelan D’Isa

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The justices revisit the difficult and controversial issue of applying the First Amendment to sidewalk confrontations between protesters and patients and staff outside abortion clinics. Two earlier decisions dealt rather tentatively with specific court injunctions that only covered particular locations. This case considers a Colorado statute that broadly sets out the rules of engagement for all face-to-face confrontations, handbilling, picketing, and other public protests outside any health care facility in the state.

• Previewed by Thomas E. Baker

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether a product design or configuration will be treated in the same manner as other forms of “trade dress” such as packaging. Specifically, the question is what must be shown to establish that a product’s design is “inherently distinctive,” that is, immediately recognizable by the public as associated with a brand or mark. The Court's decision will settle a dispute in the lower courts over whether a more restrictive test is necessary for product designs in order to protect competition.

• Previewed by Hugh C. Hansen

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision