Issue # 3, October 2010 Term
Pepper v. United States
This case is another follow-up to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)—which declared judicial fact-finding within the mandatory federal Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional and remedied this problem by making the Guidelines "effectively advisory." Since Booker, the Supreme Court in a series of decisions has stressed that district judges now have broad discretion at initial sentencings; this case presents the Court with its first opportunity to address the scope of a district judge's discretion after an initial sentence has been reversed on appeal and remanded for resentencing.
Complete PREVIEW Article
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
An Arizona law makes it a violation of Arizona law for employers to hire unauthorized aliens. Violators may be sanctioned by the loss of their licenses to do business in the state, including revocation of their articles of incorporation. The law also requires employers to use a federal electronic employment verification system to check whether new hires have the right to work in the United States. The Supreme Court will consider whether such a law is preempted by federal law.
Complete PREVIEW Article
This case is another follow-up to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)—which declared judicial fact-finding within the mandatory federal Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional and remedied this problem by making the Guidelines "effectively advisory." Since Booker, the Supreme Court in a series of decisions has stressed that district judges now have broad discretion at initial sentencings; this case presents the Court with its first opportunity to address the scope of a district judge's discretion after an initial sentence has been reversed on appeal and remanded for resentencing.
Complete PREVIEW Article
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
An Arizona law makes it a violation of Arizona law for employers to hire unauthorized aliens. Violators may be sanctioned by the loss of their licenses to do business in the state, including revocation of their articles of incorporation. The law also requires employers to use a federal electronic employment verification system to check whether new hires have the right to work in the United States. The Supreme Court will consider whether such a law is preempted by federal law.
Complete PREVIEW Article
Issue # 5, October 2009 Term
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether Hastings Law School violates the First Amendment rights of the petitioners, a student group, by refusing to recognize it as a "registered student organization" (RSO). The group welcomes all Hastings law students but requires its voting members and officers to sign and adhere to a Statement of Faith. The law school denied the group's RSO request on the grounds that the membership policies violated the school's nondiscrimination policy. The Court will decide whether the law school has violated the petitioners' free speech rights, rights of expressive association, or free exercise of religion.
Complete PREVIEW Article
City of Ontario v. Quon
Jeff Quon, a sergeant on the SWAT team of the Ontario Police Department, was issued a pager which could send and receive text messages. The department told officers that pagers were to be used for work purposes only, though "light personal use" was permitted. The policy was clear that there was to be no expectation of privacy when using government issued machines for electronic communications, but the policy did not expressly mention pagers. Also, a lieutenant told Quon and other officers that their messages would not be read if they paid for additional use. In light of this, did the lieutenant’s reading of Quon's messages violate the Fourth Amendment right to privacy of Quon or of those he was communicating with?
Complete PREVIEW Article
Follow-up interview after oral argument
In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether Hastings Law School violates the First Amendment rights of the petitioners, a student group, by refusing to recognize it as a "registered student organization" (RSO). The group welcomes all Hastings law students but requires its voting members and officers to sign and adhere to a Statement of Faith. The law school denied the group's RSO request on the grounds that the membership policies violated the school's nondiscrimination policy. The Court will decide whether the law school has violated the petitioners' free speech rights, rights of expressive association, or free exercise of religion.
Complete PREVIEW Article
City of Ontario v. Quon
Jeff Quon, a sergeant on the SWAT team of the Ontario Police Department, was issued a pager which could send and receive text messages. The department told officers that pagers were to be used for work purposes only, though "light personal use" was permitted. The policy was clear that there was to be no expectation of privacy when using government issued machines for electronic communications, but the policy did not expressly mention pagers. Also, a lieutenant told Quon and other officers that their messages would not be read if they paid for additional use. In light of this, did the lieutenant’s reading of Quon's messages violate the Fourth Amendment right to privacy of Quon or of those he was communicating with?
Complete PREVIEW Article
Follow-up interview after oral argument
