NPR Coverage of the 2005 (-06) Term
of the US Supreme Court
updated 29 October 2006
Recap of
2005 Term
For the first time in 11 years, the Supreme Court had a new
membership, a new ideological makeup, and a new chief justice.
The court wrapped up its current term with a bang, issuing a
historic decision on presidential power by striking down
military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
With the departure of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the arrivals of
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the court
shifted to the right, as expected.
It would have moved far more dramatically to the right had it not been
for the court's new swing justice, Anthony Kennedy. It's a role
Kennedy has played in the past. But he's been more reliably
conservative than O'Connor, and less likely to defect to the
more liberal bloc of justices. Morning
Edition, July 4, 2006.
Yet More
Gitmo
The Supreme Court has ruled that President Bush overstepped his authority in the
design of war crimes trials for some Guantanamo detainees. The court ruled 5-3
that the president did not have the authority to take the "extraordinary
measure" of developing trials that severely limited the rights of the accused.
Morning Edition, June
30, 2006.
More
Gitmo
President Bush overstepped his authority in the design of war
crimes trials of Guantanamo detainees, according to a Supreme
Court ruling. The Bush administration argued that the
president has the power to make that decision on his own. The
court ruled 5-3 that the president did not have the authority to
take the "extraordinary measure" of developing trials that
severely limited the rights of the accused. But the
court's decision leaves open the possibility that the nation's
laws could be changed to allow the trials to continue.
All Things Considered, June 29,
2006.
Gitmo
Tribunal Policy Struck Down
The Supreme Court rules against President Bush on his administration's handling
of war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees. The ruling says the proposed
trials for Guantanomo detainees were illegal under U.S. law and international
Geneva conventions. Morning Edition,
June 29, 2006.
More on
Texas Redistricting
The Supreme Court has issued a major decision on legislative re-apportionment.
Based on a Texas case, the court ruled that state legislatures may redraw
congressional district lines when they see fit. Traditionally, legislatures have
reworked districts every 10 years with the census. The ruling may set off a wave
of attempts to redraw districts across the U.S. Nina Totenberg reports.
Morning Edition, June
29, 2006.
Texas
Redistricting Splits the Baby... and the Court
The Supreme Court upholds most of the changes made in Texas's congressional
districts, which were redrawn at the urging of former House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay. But the justices ruled that in one district, the map failed to protect
minority rights, saying that it violates the Voting Rights Act.
All Things Considered,
June 28, 2006.
More on
Vermont Campaign Finance Case
The Supreme Court rejected a Vermont law Monday that sets strict limits on money
in political campaigns. The ruling came as a relief to many people in politics.
It maintains the standards that have governed campaign finance for the past 30
years. Morning Edition,
June 27, 2006.
Court
Upholds Kansas Death Instructions
Supreme Court justices sparred over the fairness of capital punishment Monday as
they wrapped up their last death penalty case of the term. It was a surprisingly
spirited conclusion to a case from Kansas that had gotten little attention. Nina
Totenberg reports. Morning Edition,
June 27, 2006.
What is
Left: Redistricting and Guantanamo
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on a handful of cases in its current
session. One of the cases is the so-called "Hamdan case," which could determine
the future of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Also pending is a decision
on redistricting in Texas. Michele Norris talks with NPR's Nina Totenberg.
All Things Considered,
June 26, 2006.
Court
Strikes Down Vermont Campaign Contribution Law
A divided Supreme Court throws out Vermont's limits on campaign contributions,
ruling that the law constitutes a restraint of free speech, in violation of the
First Amendment. Vermont's limits on campaign spending and fundraising are the
lowest in the nation. All Things Considered,
June 26, 2006.
More on
Retaliation Decision
The Supreme Court rules that a
company must pay damages to a female employee it punished after
she filed a discrimination complaint. The original ruling upheld
by the court ordered the company to pay $43,000 to the woman.
Morning Edition,
June 23, 2006.
The Court
Sides with Worker in Employer Retaliation Suit
The Supreme Court rules that a company is required to pay damages to a female
worker who was retaliated against after she lodged a sex-discrimination
complaint. A lower court had ruled that the worker had not originally been
discriminated against, but that after she filed her complaint, she had been
unfairly retaliated against. All Things
Considered, June 22, 2006.
More on
911 Call Decision
The Supreme Court rules that some 911 calls may be used as
evidence when domestic abuse victims testify in court. But in a
related case, the court refused to allow a jury to hear a sworn
statement given to police by an abuse victim after the crisis
was over. Morning Edition,
June 20, 2006.
More on
the Wetlands Decision... and the Centrality of Anthony Kennedy
The Supreme Court produces a split decision over the protection
of wetlands areas. The justices decided 5-4 that regulators may
have misinterpreted the federal Clean Water Act when they
refused to allow two Michigan property owners to build on
wetlands they own. The justices could not reach a consensus on
whether government may extend protections for wetlands miles
away from waterways. Morning
Edition, June 20, 2006.
911 Calls
are not Testimonial Evidence in Criminal Trials
The Supreme Court rules that prosecutors may use some recorded 911
emergency calls as courtroom evidence, even if the victim of a crime is not in
court for cross-examination. All Things
Considered, June 19, 2006.
Court
splits on Wetlands Regulation
The U.S. Supreme Court rules that regulators may have misinterpreted the federal
Clean Water Act when they refused to allow two Michigan property owners to build
on wetlands they own. The 5-4 split decision came after debate over whether
government can extend protections for wetlands miles away from waterways.
All Things Considered,
June 19, 2006.
More on "Knock and Announce" and the Exclusionary Rule
After a bitter debate, the Supreme Court issues a 5-4 ruling
that protects evidence gathered by more aggressive police-search
techniques. Justices split over a case where police -- armed
with a warrant -- paused only briefly before entering a home.
Morning Edition,
June 16,
2006.
No Exclusionary Rule for a Violation of the "Knock and Announce"
Rule
The Supreme Court rules that police in Michigan can use the
evidence they gathered in a search warrant at a home, even
though they waited only a few seconds after announcing their
presence before entering the house. In the past, the justices
have wanted police to wait longer. All
Things Considered,
June 15, 2006
Critics say that since police need not wait more
than a few seconds, they are essentially freed
from giving any notice before carrying out the
search, at least under the federal constitution.
The change was made possible by the votes of the
two new justices.
More on Death Penalty Decisions: Determining Guilty; Nature of
Punishment
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court paves the way for
challenges to the use of lethal injection in death penalty
cases. The court also expanded the rights of inmates to
challenge convictions in federal court based on DNA evidence.
Morning Edition,
June 13, 2006
Death Penalty: Determining Guilty; Nature of Punishment
The Supreme Court rules that death-row inmates may challenge
lethal injection as an unnecessarily cruel -- and thus
unconstitutional -- punishment. The unanimous decision came on
the same day the court expanded inmates' ability to challenge
their convictions in federal court based on new DNA evidence.
All Things Considered,
June 12, 2006.
Court to Hear Case on Use of Race to "Balance" Public Schools
The U.S. Supreme Court reenters the battle
over affirmative action, announcing that it will decide whether
public schools may use race as a factor in making students
assignments in order to promote racial diversity.
All Things Considered,
June 5,
2006.
Whistle-Blowing Not Protected by First Amendment
A new Supreme Court ruling could make it
much more difficult for public employees to bring retaliation
claims against their bosses for critical reports they make
through the chain of command. By a 5-to-4 vote, the court ruled
that public employees have no First Amendment right to make
internal reports that their bosses don't like.
All Things Considered,
May 30, 2006.
Roberts' Court Produces More Unanimous Decision
Many decisions coming out of the Supreme Court this term have
been unanimous. At first glance, that might make the court look
unified under new Chief Justice John Roberts. The unity,
however, appears to have been achieved by narrowing the scope of
the rulings. Morning Edition,
May 22,
2006.
ANNA
WINS!!!! (for now)
The Supreme Court rules that one-time stripper and Playboy
Playmate Anna Nicole Smith can pursue part of her late husband's
oil fortune. Justices unanimously gave new legal life to Smith's
bid to collect millions of dollars from the estate of J. Howard
Marshall II.
Smith married Marshall, an oil tycoon, in 1994 -- she was 26,
he was 89. His estate has been estimated to be worth as much as
$1.6 billion. Marshall says he'll continue a court battle for
his father's entire estate. All
Things Considered, May 1, 2006
Oral
Arguments in the Lethal Injection Case
The Supreme Court hears arguments on what condemned inmates can
do to challenge their method of execution. The Florida case
centers on whether an inmate should get a federal court hearing
on his claim that the lethal-injection method causes unnecessary
pain.
Inmate Clarence Hill was convicted of killing a police
officer. In January, Hill's execution was stayed by the Supreme
Court as he lay strapped to a gurney in Florida's death chamber.
Thirty years ago, death by lethal injection was conceived of
as a more humane way to execute the condemned -- 37 states now
use the method. But the lethal cocktail that is administered has
not changed, and critics charge that unnecessary suffering is
caused by both the cocktail and the lack of training for those
who administer it.
Another issue is that the anesthesia that is first
administered is short-term, critics say. Death-penalty lawyer
Ted Doss, speaking outside the Supreme Court, said that the
paralytic administered after the anesthesia prevents the
condemned man from indicating if he is still conscious and
feeling. All Things Considered,
April 26, 2006
The Tools
of Lethal Injection
The Supreme Court hears arguments in a case about challenges to the use of
lethal injection. It could give inmates new authority to challenge the execution
method. Morning Edition,
April 26, 2006
Arguments
in Warrantless Entry Case
The Supreme Court hears arguments in a case about police
entering a home without a warrant. Police in a Utah community
looked through a window, and saw adults trying to restrain a
young man, who then punched one of the adults.
The police entered the home without a warrant, and the
occupants were charged with misdemeanors. Lower courts, deeming
the entry unconstitutional, have ruled that evidence from the
scene can not be used in court. All
Things Considered, April 24, 2006
Warrantless Police Entry Case
A court case that began with a simple complaint from a neighbor about a loud
party has now landed in the Supreme Court. The justices will hear arguments that
examine when, and for what reasons, police are authorized to enter a home.
Morning Edition, April
24, 2006
Oral
Arguments in the Insanity Defense Case
The Supreme Court hears arguments in an Arizona case about the
use of the insanity defense in the case of a delusional man
convicted of killing a police officer. The state says the
accused can discern right from wrong. His family wants him found
guilty by reason of insanity. As proof, they cite his contention
that 50,000 aliens live in the city of Flagstaff.
All Things Considered,
April 19, 2006
Insanity
Defenses and the Due Process Clause
The Supreme Court reviews Clark v. Arizona, a new test of the insanity defense.
The parents of an Arizona man who killed a police officer want their son
declared guilty but insane. The state does not want his mental state considered
in court. Morning Edition,
April 19, 2006
Oral
Arguments in Workplace Retaliation Case
The Supreme Court hears arguments related to employees being punished after
making discrimination complaints. The case of a worker suspended without pay for
more than a month could define the circumstances under which an employee who
charges discrimination can also sue for retaliation.
All Things Considered, April 17, 2006
Employer
Retaliation Case
The Supreme Court hears a case attempting to define what constitutes retaliation
by an employer against an employee who has filed a discrimination suit against
their company. Morning Edition,
April 17, 2006
More on
the Orals from Hamdan
U.S. Supreme Court justices sharply question the legal basis for
the military tribunals set up by President Bush in the war on
terrorism. The White House contends that detainees must first
submit to military commissions, and then may appeal to civilian
courts.
Morning Edition,
March 29, 2006
The entire oral argument is
here.
Oral
Arguments in Hamdan
The Supreme Court hears arguments about whether President Bush
has the sole power to establish military tribunals to try
Guantanamo prisoners for war crimes. The administration says the
detainees have to submit first to commissions run by the
military, and only when that is done can they appeal to civilian
courts.
All Things Considered,
March 28, 2006
Excerpts from oral argument
here.
The Court
to Hear Hamdan
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a case that challenges President
Bush's power to set up military tribunals for suspected terrorists. The case
centers on Osama bin Laden's former driver, who says he is an innocent father
who worked for bin Laden only to make a living. The Bush administration says he
is a trained terrorist who should be tried before a special tribunal.
Morning Edition, March
28, 2006
Court
Rejects Spousal Consent to Search
In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that police without a warrant
cannot search a home when the residents disagree about whether the police can
enter. Chief Justice John Roberts was among the dissenters, saying the ruling
could have severe consequences on domestic violence cases.
All Things Considered,
March 22, 2006
Yale Law
and the Military
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that colleges must accept military
recruiters on campus, if the schools want to continue receiving federal funds.
Some schools had objected to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on
gays. The schools claimed that, as a matter of free speech, they should not have
to associate with military recruiters. Morning
Edition, March 7, 2006
Oral
Arguments... Justice DeLay(ed)?
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on congressional redistricting. At issue
is the 2003 Texas redistricting plan orchestrated by former House Majority
Leader Tom DeLay. That plan resulted in Republicans picking up six seats in the
U.S. House of Representatives. All Things
Considered, March 1, 2006
Texas
Reapportionment Case
The U.S. Supreme Court hears a case that could have a major impact on elections
and the balance of power in Congress. Up for debate is the constitutionality of
a political boundary map promoted by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
(R-TX). Morning Edition,
March 1, 2006
Anna's
Day ... the Justices Seem to Like What They Hear from Her
The Supreme Court justices seem sympathetic to actress Anna Nicole Smith as they
hear arguments in her case to claim part of her late billionaire husband's
estate. The question is whether federal courts have a role in probate issues,
which traditionally are in the control of the states.
All Things Considered,
February 28, 2006
Campaign
Finance Comes Before the Bush Court
The Supreme Court considers a challenge to a Vermont law that would overturn
three decades of federal campaign finance law. Current precedent limits the
amount of money individual donors can give candidates, but not the amount
candidates can spend in a campaign. Vermont wants to set spending limits on
gubernatorial candidates. Morning Edition,
February 28, 2006
Anna
Nicole Smith Appeals to Different Old Men (and One Woman)
The Supreme Court hears a case involving celebrity Anna Nicole Smith and
millions of dollars. She is attempting to establish her claim to part of her
late husband's estate. Morning Edition,
February 28, 2006
Anna, arriving at the Supreme Court, 28 February 2006
Abortion
Returns... this Time to the "Bush Court"
The Supreme Court votes to review a case stemming from the Partial Birth
Abortion Ban Act. The federal law has been struck down by judges in three
states. Those states say that the act doesn't make an exception for using the
technique to save the health of the mother. All
Things Considered, February 21, 2006
Oral
Arguments in the Clean Water Case
The Supreme Court hears arguments about a challenge to the Clean Water Act. The
case involves a developer who refuses to apply for a permit to build on
wetland-designated property. He says the federal act should not apply to the
land, which is 20 miles from Lake Huron. All Things
Considered, February 21, 2006
The "Bush
Court," Sitting for the First Time, Takes Up the Clean Water Act
The Supreme Court hears arguments on Tuesday in two cases that could
dramatically limit the reach of the Clean Water Act. The law has been credited
with preserving the nation's waterways. But some landowners and developers say
the regulations are too restrictive. Morning
Edition, February 21, 2006
The Court
Punts the New Hampshire Abortion Case
The Supreme Court, ruling in its first abortion case since 2000, reiterates that
restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they do not provide for an
exception to protect the woman's health. But it sends the case, which involves
involves New Hampshire's parental-notification requirement for minors, back to
the lower courts and steers clear of any major new pronouncements in its
unanimous decision. All Things Considered,
January 18, 2006
More on
Oregon Decision
By a 6-to-3 vote the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld an Oregon law that
allows doctors to prescribe lethal doses of narcotics to terminally ill patients
who want to end their lives. The physician-assisted suicide law is the only one
in the country. Morning Edition,
January 18, 2006
Justices
Uphold Oregon Assisted Suicide Law
The Supreme Court rules in favor of Oregon's physician-assisted-suicide
law in a 6-to-3 decision. The justices find the state has the right to allow
doctors to prescribe lethal doses of drugs for terminally ill, mentally sound
patients. The court also finds that the Bush administration, through the actions
of the U.S. attorney general, had in effect criminalized the practice without
the authorization of Congress. All Things
Considered, January 17, 2006 ·
More on
the DNA Case, House v. Bell
The Supreme Court hears an appeal from death row inmate Paul Bell, who wants his
conviction reversed. It's the first time the high court has agreed to look at a
post-conviction appeal based on DNA evidence.
Day to Day, January 11, 2006
DNA
Testing and the Death Penalty
The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a case that marks
the first time a death row inmate has brought DNA evidence
before the high court to prove his innocence. The outcome could
determine whether prisoners have a constitutional right to use
DNA technology to seek new trials.
Morning Edition, January 11, 2006
Abortion,
the Public, and the Court
Josh Rogers of New Hampshire Public Radio reports on public opinion about
abortion in New Hampshire. The abortion case currently before the Supreme Court
concerns a New Hampshire law. When a minor wants to have an abortion, the law
requires that the provider notify one of her parents at least 48 hours
beforehand. There is support for abortion rights in New Hampshire -- but also
for notification laws like this. All Things
Considered, January 4, 2006
Then,
Jeffrey Rosen of the George Washington University law school discusses other
abortion cases that might come before the Supreme Court in the future.
Texas Reapportionment: Political Thicket or "What a Tangled Web We
Weave..."?
The Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of a map for Texas
congressional districts that opponents say was improperly manipulated. The map,
engineered by Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX), helped Republicans increase their hold on
the Texas delegation. Things Considered,
December 12, 2005
Orals In
Yale Law v. The Military
The Supreme Court hears arguments on some law schools' objections to military
recruiters on campus. The schools are asking the court to overturn a law that
withdraws federal funds if the schools don't allow the military the same access
and help that it gives other employers who recruit on campus.
All Things Considered,
December 6, 2005
Yale Law
v. The Military
The Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday on whether the federal government may
order law schools to give military recruiters the same access as other
prospective employers. Currently, federal funds can be withdrawn from an entire
university if one of its schools bans military recruiters.
Morning Edition,
December 6, 2005
Orals in
the Parental Consent Case
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday
on a New Hampshire law requiring parents be notified when a minor seeks an
abortion. Advocates of the law say parents know best for their child, but a
federal appeals court struck down the law because it did not include an
exception for a medical emergency in which the health of the minor was in
danger. Nina Totenberg reports. All Things
Considered, November 30, 2005
The
Roberts Court Takes Up Abortion
The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday on a New Hampshire law requiring
minors to notify their parents before getting an abortion. A federal appeals
court ruled against the law, saying it should carry an exemption for a minor
whose health is at stake. Morning Edition,
November 30, 2005
Special
Education: Students, Parents, Schools, and the Burden of Proof
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that parents who demand better special
education programs for their children have the burden of proof in the challenges
-- which means that when parents challenge a program, they have the burden in an
administrative hearing of showing that the program is insufficient.
All Things Considered,
November 14, 2005
ADA and State Prisons -- oral arguments
The Supreme Court is hearing a case on whether the Americans with Disabilities
Act requires state prisons to make accodmodations for disabled prisoners. The
court has issued mixed rulings in recent years on whether the federal law
infringes on the rights of states. All Things
Considered, November 9, 2005
ADA and
States... This Time Prisons
The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in an important test of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. At issue is whether a prisoner who uses a
wheelchair has the constitutional right to sue the state of Georgia for failing
to reasonably accommodate his disability.
Morning Edition, November 9, 2005
Cert
grant in the Hamdan Case
The Supreme Court agrees to consider a challenge to the military tribunals the
Bush administration has used to try suspected terrorists. One of the detainees
includes a man captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and accused of being the driver
for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. All Things
Considered, November 7, 2005
Oral
Arguments in the Oregon Case
The Supreme Court hears arguments on an Oregon state law allowing
physician-assisted suicide. The high court will decide whether the Justice
Department has the authority to override state laws regulating the prescription
of drugs and the practices of doctors. All
Things Considered, October 5, 2005
Oregon
and the Feds Tussle Over Drugs for Death
The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday on a challenge to the only state law
in the country that authorizes doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill
patients. The law allows doctors to prescribe lethal doses of drugs.
Morning Edition,
October 5, 2005.
Roberts
and the Court Begin 2005 Term as a Sideshow to the Miers Nomination
The announcement of Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court comes on the
day the court opens a new term ... with a new justice in the center seat. John
Roberts -- the 17th chief justice of the United States -- is presiding over a
court in transition, dealing with tumultuous cases.
Morning Edition, October 3, 2005
Overview
of the 2005 Term
As Chief Justice John Roberts arrives and a new high court session begins, the
court's docket includes cases involving restrictions on access to abortions,
federal vs. state drug laws and campaign finance. Legal analyst Mimi Wesson of
the University of Colorado runs down the agenda for Liane Hansen.
Weekend Edition - Sunday,
October 2, 2005.
(return to Supreme Court news
page)