Case at a Glance

This case raises issues in two important areas of criminal law. First, the Supreme Court must clarify the standards for determining when defense counsel’s performance is so ineffective that reversal is required. Second, the Court must decide the scope of federal court review of criminal convictions in state courts in light of the congressional attempt to restrict such review in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

• Previewed by Timothy W. Floyd

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether a prisoner may include claims in a Section 2254 petition for habeas corpus that were not included in an earlier petition that had been dismissed for failure to exhaust State remedies.

• Previewed by Jay E. Grenig

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

As the election year approaches, the Supreme Court is faced with a First Amendment challenge to campaign contribution limits established by the Missouri Legislature. To decide the case, the Court must revisit its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld a $1,000 contribution limit applicable to elections for federal office.

• Previewed by Bernard James and Suzane Doucette

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), the Supreme Court held that the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of appellate counsel requires that an appointed counsel in a criminal appeal who concludes that there are no meritorious issues to raise on behalf of the client may seek to withdraw as counsel, but must file a brief raising all arguable issues that could be made on the client’s behalf. This case will allow the Court to reconsider Anders and decide whether a different California procedure, in which the attorney files a brief making no arguments for the client, satisfies the Constitution.

• Previewed by Alan Raphael

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In a case that mixes race and politics, the Supreme Court will decide whether a redistricting plan that intentionally saps minority voting strength should be denied preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Clinton administration and a local NAACP chapter say yes; a Louisiana school board says no.

• Previewed by Judith Reed

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Hawaii’s Constitution says that only persons of Native Hawaiian ancestry can vote for the nine trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a body established to manage the resources of the Native Hawaiian people and advocate on their behalf. In upholding this voting restriction, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the federal government's goal of promoting and facilitating self-governance for all Native Americans also applies to the Native Hawaiian people. A Caucasian living in Hawaii, however, argues that the law is an explicit racial classification that infringes his constitutional right to vote under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

• Previewed by Jon M. Van Dyke

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Two defendants were tried on the same facts, for the same crime, and were convicted by the same state court jury. But they sought review in different state appellate courts, and in separate decisions, one conviction was reversed and the other was affirmed. The state supreme court affirmed both decisions, refusing to apply the one defendant's reversal retroactively for the benefit of the other, still-convicted defendant. That defendant now seeks habeas corpus relief in federal court and alleges both that his conviction violates due process and that he should be afforded retroactive application of the reversal obtained by his co-defendant.

• Previewed by Mary Phelan D’Isa

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

For years, Laidlaw Environmental Services operated a hazardous-waste incinerator whose wastewater discharges often violated permit conditions. Although a number of violations occurred after a citizens' suit was filed, Laidlaw improved the performance of its treatment system and came into compliance during the course of the litigation. The Supreme Court must now decide whether the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that the plaintiffs' claim for civil penalties was constitutionally "moot" because in the absence of a live claim for injunctive relief their injury could not be redressed by a civil penalty paid into the United States Treasury.

• Previewed by William L. Andreen

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Federal-state relations remain in play in the Supreme Court. In this case, state employees allege that they have been discriminated against on the basis of age. The federal government argues that it can impose its more strict theory of age discrimination on the states. It claims both that it has in fact explicitly abrogated the states' immunity from such suits and that it had the constitutional power to do so.

• Previewed by Douglas W. Kmiec

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

United Reporting is in the business of publishing the names and addresses of recently arrested individuals--its customers include law firms, chiropractors and driving schools. In this case, United is challenging a California law that says the government can only release the addresses of arrested persons if the person seeking this information certifies it will not be used "directly or indirectly to sell a product or service." United characterizes this requirement as an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech. But the Los Angeles Police Department says the First Amendment permits states to place such restrictions on the use of their resources.

• Previewed by David L. Hudson Jr.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision