|
|
|
Cases on the Docket: 2005-2006
The Supreme Court answered these questions, among others, in their 2005-2006 session. [Clicking on Docket number will take you to a case summary prepared by Medill School of Journalism]
Is the military commission established by the President to try detainees for alleged war crimes in the "war on terror" duly authorized?
05-0184 Hamdan, Salim v. Rumsfeld, Donald (Secy. of Defense) Mar. 28, 2006 Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (July 15, 2005)
Opinion: On June 29, 2006, the Court ended its 2005-06 term by ruling 5-3 that the military commissions convened by the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainess lack the authority to proceed because their structure and procedures violate both the Geneva conventions that cover treatment of prisoners of war and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Is a state fuel tax legal or does it interfere with a tribe’s sovereign right to tax, even if the state tax is imposed off the reservation on a non-Native American distributor?
04-0631 Wagnon, Joan (Kansas Secy of Revenue) v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Oct. 3, 2005 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Aug. 11, 2004)
Opinion: On Dec. 6, 2005, the Court reversed, holding 7-2 that because Kansas' motor fuel tax is a nondiscriminatory tax imposed on an off-reservation transaction among non-Indians, the tax is valid. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that the tax is not an affront to tribal sovereignty.
Did the police actions in question constitute the functional equivalent of interrogation, and if so, were they appropriately ruled inadmissible at trial?
04-0373 Maryland v. Blake, Leeander Nov. 1, 2005 Maryland Court of Appeals (May 12, 2004)
Opinion: On April 18, 2005, the Supreme Court accepted review in the case, but seven months later the Court dismissed the case after a few days of oral arguments.
Does the fee-shifting provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorize an award of expert fees?
05-0018 Arlington Central School District v. Murphy, Pearl, et vir Apr. 19, 2006 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (April 15, 2005)
Opinion: On June 26, 2006, the Court sided with the school district, holding 6-3 that the IDEA doesn't authorize prevailing parents to recover expert fees.
Is Vermont's Act 64, a comprehensive campaign finance reform law that limited both contributions to campaigns and campaign spending, legal?
04-1528 / 04-1530 / 04-1697 Randall, Neil, et al. v. Sorrell, William, et al. / Vermont Republican State Committee v. Sorrell, et al. / Sorrell, William, et al. v. Randall, Neil, et al. Feb. 28, 2006 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (Aug. 18, 2004)
Opinion: On June 26, 2006 in a 6-3 verdict, the Court held that Vermont's campaign finance reform law was unconstitutional as an infringement on free speech.
|