Case at a Glance

The defendant in this case was found mentally incompetent to stand trial on several serious federal crimes. The district court ordered that he could be forcibly injected with antipsychotic medicines to allow him to understand and participate in his trial. He and his lawyers are competent enough, however, to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court to argue that he has a constitutional right to refuse mind-altering drugs.

• Previewed by Thomas E. Baker, a member of the founding faculty at the Florida International University College of Law in Miami, Fla.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Three times in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down city or state laws regulating charitable organizations or professional fundraisers on First Amendment grounds. Now, more than 23 years after its first foray into the area, the Court has agreed to hear a case involving not a city or state law, but an individual fraud action brought by the Illinois Attorney General Office.

• 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

This case concerns the applicability of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) to concession contracts, and in particular, to contracts between the National Park Service and the private concessioners that contract to provide services and maintain facilities in the national parks. The language of the CDA broadly covers all contracts entered into by a federal agency for the procurement of personal property, services, or the repair and maintenance of real property. The National Park Service has asserted by regulation that the CDA does not apply to its concession contracts.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Chicago has sued handgun manufacturers, alleging that their marketing practices violate Chicago's gun laws (which outlaw handgun acquisition) and constitute a public nuisance. Now the city seeks to use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain firearms records held by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Bureau argues that these records are exempt from disclosure because their release could interfere with law enforcement proceedings and constitute an unwarranted invasion of gun owners' personal privacy.

• Previewed by David Kopel, research director for the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Children's Internet Protection Act contains filtering provisions for public libraries that condition the receipt of federal assistance for Internet access and related services on libraries' operation of technological measures that block all patrons' access to obscene and pornographic materials, and also block minor patrons' access to material that is "harmful to minors." Now the Supreme Court has agreed to review a trial court's decision that enjoined the government from enforcing these filtering provisions on the basis that they are facially invalid under the First Amendment.

• Previewed by Susanna F. Fischer, an assistant professor of law at The Catholic University of America School of Law in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute contains a provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), which tolls the statute of limitations for supplemental state law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed. The issue in this case is whether this provision, as applied to a state political subdivision (such as a county), is a constitutional exercise of Congress' legislative power, or whether it violates state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.

• Previewed by Elizabeth M. Rhea, a visiting assistant professor at the Catholic University of America School of Law in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This case began as a drug case, but ended up presenting the issue of whether a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is invalid because the panel of judges deciding the case included a non-Article III judge.

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

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Kevin Wiggins was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. His trial lawyers presented a haphazard case to the penalty jury, although there is some indication in the record that they knew basic facts about Wiggins's life circumstances and upbringing. Now the Court must decide if counsel actually made a strategic choice to forego presentation of this evidence, or if counsel's performance is unchallengeable because they had an elementary understanding of the background facts of Wiggins's life.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, the deputy director of the Innocence Project and an assistant professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 441b, does not allow enterprise organizations and labor unions to make direct contributions and expenditures to federal election campaigns. In Beaumont, the Court must decide whether this section, as applied to nonprofit corporation organized for political purposes, violates the First Amendment.

• Previewed by Bernard James, a professor of law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, Calif.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has held that "prison walls do not form a barrier separating inmates from the protections of the Constitution," but has also held that prison officials owe deference to prison officials' daily judgments regarding security and prison management. On March 26, the Court hears Bazzetta v. Overton—a case that presents the question whether inmates have a freedom of association right to non-contact visits from family members and others.

• 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

This case raises the issue of the rights and status of gay men and women in our society. In addition to asking the Court to overrule its privacy holding in Bowers v. Hardwick, the two men convicted for having sex with each other in this case argue that the Texas "sodomy" law unconstitutionally discriminates against them in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee to every citizen "the equal protection of the laws."

• Previewed by Dale Carpenter, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School in Minneapolis, Minn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

This case stems from the decision of the Inyo County district attorney and the county sheriff to execute a search warrant by entering the Bishop Paiute Reservation in southern California and, over the tribe's objections, seizing its confidential personnel records. The Ninth Circuit held that the county district attorney and county sheriff had violated the tribe's sovereign immunity and were therefore liable along with the county itself for damages under 42 § 1983. The Supreme Court has agreed to review that decision.

• Previewed by John P. LaVelle, an associate professor of law at the University of New Mexico School of Law, in Albuquerque, NM.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The state of California enacted a statute allowing the revival of causes of action in criminal child molesting cases barred by expired statutes of limitation. California courts upheld the constitutionality of this new law against objections that the statute was an ex post facto law. In this case, the Supreme Court must decide whether the statute violates either the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause or the Due Process Clause. The decision could affect numerous state and federal laws eliminating and modifying statutes of limitations.

• Previewed by Michael Kaye, a professor of law at Washburn University of Topeka Law School in Topeka, Kan.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision