Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)
Prof. Richard Kling discusses the Court’s recent decision on the taking of DNA from arrestees.
As we all wait for decisions in this Term’s major cases, people may wonder what is taking so long and why the big cases are so often the last cases to be announced. The short answer is that the big cases are also those in which there is most likely to be fairly strong disagreement among the justices, meaning that there are likely to be multiple opinions — and when that happens, the process can take some time. Here’s a quick primer on what happens:
This morning, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion, with a scathing dissent from Justice Scalia. But the case, Maryland v. King, is not one of the big marquee cases of this Term, nor was the line-up predictable. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy held that the Fourth Amendment allows a state to take a DNA sample using a cheek swab from all individuals arrested for serious crimes. He was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and by Justices Alito, Breyer, and Thomas. Justice Scalia, who dissented orally this morning after Justice Kennedy announced the opinion, was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
The difference in the line-up today and in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders is interesting. In that case, in which the Court upheld the routine strip search of non-violent arrestees (at least under some circumstances), Justice Scalia was in the majority upholding a state practice against a Fourth Amendment challenge, while Justice Breyer was the scathing dissenter. All the other votes tracked today’s case.
If you’re looking to refresh your memory on some of the big cases still awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision, take a look at the videos provided by Chicago-Kent’s Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States (ISCOTUS).
Discover information on the politics, the background, and the issues involved in the two same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court in our Deep Dive. These videos discuss the basics of both Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Prop 8 case) and United States v. Windsor (the DOMA case).
Professors Carolyn Shapiro (ISCOTUS Director and Associate Professor of Law) and Sheldon Nahmod (Distinguished Professor of Law) discuss the details in Fisher v. University of Texas.
To stay updated with the latest in Supreme Court commentary, subscribe to ISCOTUSnow’s YouTube channel.
As we enter June, we also enter the final month, for all intents and purposes, of October Term 2012 (OT 2012) of the Supreme Court (I say “for all intents and purposes” because although the Court’s Term will not actually end until the opening of OT 2013 on October 7, 2013, the Court traditionally issues it final decisions in argued cases during the last week of June). Thus far, the Court has issued opinions in 45 argued cases, as well as 4 per curiam opinions in cases decided without argument.
The Supreme Court today issued opinions in two cases involving procedures for habeas corpus, specifically in the context of individuals who are challenging their state-court convictions or capital sentences. Habeas allows these individuals to allege that their convictions are invalid due to constitutional defects in the trials. Winning such a claim is very, very difficult. The legal doctrine is very restrictive, thanks to both Congress, which passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) in 1996, and to years of highly restrictive Supreme Court precedent. Today, however, both cases inched open doors for habeas petitioners.