Case at a Glance

The discharge of an "S" Corporation's debt generally is excluded from the income of its shareholders to the extent the S Corporation is insolvent. In this case, the Court must resolve a split in the circuit courts to determine whether shareholders in an insolvent S Corporation that obtained a discharge of indebtedness will also receive a basis increase in their S Corporation stock equal to their allocable share of the discharged debt.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide a question that has sharply divided the lower federal courts and has serious implications for the national policy favoring the use of arbitration to resolve disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements: under what circumstances must a court refuse to enforce a labor arbitrator’s award because it is “contrary to public policy”?

• Previewed by John J. Cannon, a professor of law at Villanova University School of Law in Villanova, Penn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Since 1967, the Supreme Court has upheld a number of seizures and searches despite the absence of individualized probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Two of these instances involved the use of roadblocks to check for the presence of illegal aliens or for signs of impaired driving. Now the Court has agreed to address the constitutional issues surrounding the use of roadblocks for drug interdiction.

• Previewed by Mark M. Dobson, a professor of law at Nova Southeastern Law Center in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.

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

In this case, the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether an order compelling arbitration and dismissing a lawsuit’s underlying claims is a “final decision” subject to immediate appellate review under the Federal Arbitration Act. It also must decide whether an arbitration provision that is “silent” on the issue of costs and fees should be unenforceable under the Act. The Eleventh Circuit answered "yes" to both questions, but the Supreme Court has agreed to review those rulings.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This case involves a Fourth Amendment challenge to a drug-testing policy implemented at a South Carolina public hospital. Under the policy, pregnant women are tested -- without warrants or probable cause -- for cocaine use. Positive test results are shared with law-enforcement officials, and some women were arrested and threatened with prosecution if they did not complete drug treatment.

• Previewed by Richard W. Garnett, a professor of law at Notre Dame Law School in Notre Dame, Ind.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1996, Congress imposed greater restrictions on the use of Legal Services Corporation funds. One of these restrictions bars attorneys who receive LSC funds from challenging “existing” welfare laws. These attorneys may help their indigent clients seek “specific relief from a welfare agency,” but they may not challenge the constitutionality of the welfare laws. A group of lawyers and welfare recipients now contend that this restriction violates the First Amendment.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The federal mail fraud statute prohibits schemes for obtaining “property” by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises. Is a state or municipalities' issuance of a license “property” under the mail fraud statute? If so, falsified applications for licenses could lead to federal felony charges.

• Previewed by Ralph C. Anzivino, a professor of law at Marquette University School of Law in Milwaukee, Wisc.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), tolls the one-year statute of limitations for habeas corpus petitions. In this case, the Court is asked to determine whether a state post-conviction application should be deemed "properly filed" within the meaning of that federal statute even if it was procedurally barred from review under state law.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Section 5 of the 14^th Amendment grants Congress broad power to remedy and deter violations of the rights guaranteed in that Amendment, including the venerated right to equal protection. In this case, the state of Alabama contends that Congress exceeded its Section 5 authority when, in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it abrogated the states’ traditional 11^th Amendment immunity from suits by individuals in federal courts.

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

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

A private athletic association charged a private high school with violating recruiting rules by contacting star middle-school athletes. The school -- a perennial football powerhouse -- responding by suing in federal court. It contended that the association's recruiting rule deprived students and their parents of important information about educational opportunities. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether the athletic association is a "state actor" and thus subject to federal constitutional constraints.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The petitioner was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and received a two-level sentence enhancement for possessing a firearm. While in prison, he sought treatment through the Residential Drug Abuse Program, which provides for a one-year sentence reduction. Citing the firearms enhancement, the Bureau of Prisons refused to consider him for early release. There is a split among the circuits as to whether the BOP has the authority to categorically deny such prisoners consideration for early release.

• 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

Privately owned pistachio orchards were flooded by waters running through a federally owned irrigation canal. The Court will decide whether the canal’s status as part of a larger water project immunizes the United States from suit under the Flood Control Act when neither the purpose of the canal nor the cause of its leaks were related to flood conditions.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Congress in 1972 enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over navigable waters, broadly defined as “waters of the United States.” The Supreme Court now must decide whether that jurisdiction extends to isolated wetlands.

• Previewed by Denis Binder, a professor of law at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.

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

In Kansas v. Hendricks, the Supreme Court upheld a Sexually Violent Predator Act under which persons can be “civilly” confined, perhaps for the rest of their lives. In this case, the Court will decide whether a Sexually Violent Predator Act that is constitutional on its face can nevertheless violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto prohibitions because of the way in which the Act is applied to a particular individual.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision