SCOTUS for law students

In 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute persons who were mentally retarded – a condition for which mental health organizations now use the term “intellectually disabled.”  On Monday in the case of Hall v. Florida, the Justices will consider how states should determine when a defendant in a capital case is intellectually disabled. Although the Court will review the specific practice of only one state, Florida, the decision may have significant practical impact on the definitions in other states that continue to use the death penalty.

The question of when public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from lawsuits for damages is a recurring one for the Supreme Court:  during this Term the Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in three cases that involve questions of qualified immunity, and recent Terms have seen more such appeals. The outcome of cases involving qualified immunity has enormous practical importance.  On the one hand, qualified immunity protects public officials, allowing them to do their jobs without fear of liability.  But on the other hand, it can limit the ability of individuals to recover damages in many cases involving civil rights and civil liberties.

If you want an unusual measure of the power of the Supreme Court, consider why parties to a case sometimes (although rarely) settle their dispute after the Justices have agreed to hear the appeal and as oral argument approaches. In some cases, the answer may simply be fear of losing, but it can also be much more profound:  not only the fear of losing, but also a concern that in the process the loss may establish a legal precedent for the nation that one side of the case considers harmful. The most recent example came last week, when officials in the New Jersey town of Mount Holly agreed to settle a housing discrimination lawsuit filed in 2008 by the residents of a part of town known as the Gardens. Last June, the Court agreed to hear the case, and oral argument was scheduled for December 4 in Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action Inc.

It is quite certain that professional gamblers Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson were not thinking about personal jurisdiction when they carried $97,000 in cash through the San Juan and Atlanta airports on their way to Las Vegas. But personal jurisdiction is exactly what the Supreme Court will consider on Monday, when it hears oral arguments in Walden v. Fiore. At issue in the case is whether Fiore and Gipson can sue a Georgia police officer working as a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent in federal district court in Nevada for seizing their funds without probable cause and holding the money for more than six months before it was returned to them.

Tough free speech cases seem to have become a hallmark of the Roberts Court. This Term may be no exception, as the Justices consider whether a Massachusetts law creating a buffer zone to keep protesters away from abortion clinic entrance sidewalks is constitutional. Recall that the Roberts Court has already wrestled with a federal ban on animal crush videos, a state law restricting sale of violent video games, issues related to protests at the funerals of deceased military service members, and a federal prohibition on false claims about military honors. In each of these controversial cases, the Court protected the free speech interests from regulation.

When may public officials open their meetings with a prayer? The Supreme Court will attempt to answer this important question in the new Term that begins on October 7. The answer may be of considerable importance at many levels. Many local governments – from city, town, and county councils to school boards – will be awaiting the outcome to decide whether they may continue the practice of having a prayer at the start of their sessions. Others will watch the decision closely to see what insight it provides on the Court’s view of the scope and meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Finally, the decision should be of interest to law students studying the First Amendment generally or in religion seminars more narrowly, or to those in local government law courses or doing internships with local legislative bodies.

When a Justice reads some or all of a dissenting opinion aloud in the Courtroom, it instantly captures the attention of those present and changes the atmosphere in the small, ornate chamber. It happens so infrequently that it adds an air of excitement to the room and of gravitas to the opinion. That drama was on full display as the Court concluded its Term last week with blockbuster rulings. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read dissents in the Courtroom on Monday and Tuesday, and Justice Antonin Scalia followed suit on Wednesday.

Nearly fifty years ago, comedian Bill Cosby did a very funny skit called “Oops,” about how a patient, awake under local anesthesia, might react on hearing the surgeon use that word in the operating room. “Did you say ‘oops,’” Cosby asked? “What do you mean ‘oops’?” But when Supreme Court Justices decide, after the fact, that they may have made a mistake, it is rarely a laughing matter. The most recent example of a Justice expressing second thoughts was Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired in 2006.  Last month she told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune that perhaps the Supreme Court should not have ruled in the case of Bush v. Gore, the December 2000 decision that halted the Florida recount and gave the presidential election to George W. Bush.