2002 Supreme Court Docket Summary
— By Thomas Goldstein

• Nguyen v. United States (01-10873 & 02-5034) (11/4; 3/24; 6/9) (CA9; Rev.; 5-4)
  Decision; Docket & 02-5034; Findlaw
  The Ninth Circuit panel did not have authority decide the petitioners’ appeals since it included a non-Article III judge.
  Criminal, Non-Business, Constitutional
  Majority: [JPS] & SOC, AMK, DS, CT
  Dissent: [WHR] & AS, RBG, SGB [Even though it was an error to have a non-Article III judge on the panel, the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Therefore, the error is not a valid basis for invalidating the petitioners’ convictions.]
  
  
• Wiggins v. Smith (02-311) (11/18; 3/24; 6/26)(CA4; Rev.; 7-2)
  Docket; Findlaw
  Defense counsel in a capital case clearly violated the requirements of Strickland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigating evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence.
  Criminal, Non-Business, Constitutional
  Majority: [SOC] & WHR; JPS; AMK; DS; RBG; SGB.
  Dissent: [AS] & CT.
  
  
• Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont (02-403) (11/18; 3/25; 6/16) (CA4; Rev.; 7-2)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  The Federal Election Campaign Act’s "direct contribution prohibition," which prohibits corporations from making direct contributions or expenditures in connection with certain federal elections, may be applied to a nonprofit advocacy corporation consistent with the First Amendment.
  General Civil, Business, Constitutional
  Majority: [DS] & WHR, JPS, SOC, RBG, SGB
  Concurrence: [AMK]
  Dissent: [CT] & AS [Campaign finance laws are subject to strict scrutiny and this provision does not survive review under that rigorous standard.]
  
  
• Overton v. Bazzetta (02-94) (12/2; 3/26; 6/16) (CA6; Rev.; 9-0)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  1. The Michigan Department of Corrections regulations limiting the visitation rights of prisoners bear a rational relation to legitimate penological interests, regardless of whether the prisoners have a constitutional right of association that survived incarceration.
  2. The visitation restriction for inmates who have two or more substance abuse violations is not a cruel and unusual confinement condition violating the Eighth Amendment.
  Criminal, Non-Business, Constitutional
  Majority: [AMK] & WHR, JPS, SOC, DS, RBG, SGB
  Concurrences: [JPS] & DS, RBG, SGB
  in judgment [CT] & AS.
  
  
• Lawrence v. Texas (02-102) (12/2; 3/26; 6/26) (Ct. App. Tx.; Rev.; 6-3)
  Docket; Findlaw
  A state statute criminalizing homosexual sodomy violates the Due Process Clause. Bowers v. Hardwick, which had held to the contrary, is overruled.
  Civil Rights, Non-Business, Constitutional
  Opinion: [AMK] & JPS; DS; RBG; SGB.
  Concurrence: in the judgment [SOC] [Homosexual sodomy statute violates the Equal Protection Clause; Bowers should not be overruled.]
  Dissents: [AS] & WHR; CT [Bowers should not be overruled under principles of stare decisis, and in any event the law does not violate the Due Process Clause because there is no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.]
  [CT] [same.]
  
  
• Inyo Co. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians (02-281) (12/2; 3/31; 5/19) (CA9; Rev.; 9-0)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  The Tribe may not sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to advance its sovereign interests since a tribe does not qualify as a "person within the jurisdiction" of the United States.
  General Civil/Civil Rights, Non-Business, Statutory
  Opinion: [RBG] & WHR, SOC, AS, AMK, DS, CT, SBG
  Concurrence: in judgment [JPS] [A Native American tribe is a "person" who may sue under § 1983. However, the Tribe in this case did not state a cause of action under § 1983 since the country’s alleged infringement of the Tribe’s sovereign prerogatives did not deprive it of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and its laws."]
  
  
• Stogner v. California (01-1757) (12/2; 3/31;6/26) (Ct. App. Cal.; Rev.; 5-4)
  Docket; Findlaw
  A state statute creating a new statute of limitations period for a sex-related child abuse prosecution that would otherwise be barred by the prior statute of limitations violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
  Criminal, Non-Business, Constitutional
  Opinion: [SGB] & JPS, SOC, DS, RBG
  Dissent: [AMK] & WHR, AS, CT [Statute that revives prosecution but does not alter the definition of a crime does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.]
  
  
• Grutter v. Bollinger (02-241) (12/2; 4/1) (CA6; Rev.; 6-3)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  The Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
  Civil Rights, Non-Business, Constitutional
  Majority: [SOC] & JPS, DS, RBG, SGB joined in part by CT & AS [insofar as it is consistent with the expressed in Part VII of the opinion of CT]
  Concurrence: [RBG] & SGB [Over the next generation, progress toward nondiscrimination and equal opportunity will make it a safe sunset for affirmative action.]
  Concurrences in part and Dissents in part: [AS] & CT [The Constitution proscribes discrimination based on race, and state-provided education is no exception. Furthermore, the Grutter/Gratz split will prolong the controversy and the litigation in this area.]
  [CT] & AS as to parts I-VII [Agrees with the majority’s decision insofar as the decision confirms that further use of race in admissions remains unlawful. Also agrees with the majority that affirmative action will be illegal in 25 years. However, he dissents from the majority since he believes that practice of affirmative action can only weaken the principle of equity embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause. "Now we must wait another 25 years to see this principle of equity vindicated."]
  Dissent: [WHR] & AS, AMK, CT [The means employed by the law school are not narrowly tailored to the interests it asserts]
  [AMK] [The opinion by Justice Powell in Bakke states the correct rule for
  resolving this case. There, he asserted that race may be one, nonpredominant factor, provided that the program meets the test of strict
  scrutiny].
  
  
• Gratz v. Bollinger (02-516) (12/2; 4/1) (E.D. Mich.; Rev.; 6-3)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  1.  Petitioners have standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
  2.  Because the University’s use of race in its current freshmen admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents’ asserted interest in diversity, the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause.
  3.  Because the University’s use of race in its current freshmen admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, it also violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
  Civil Rights, Non-Business, Constitutional
  Majority: [WHR] & SOC, AS, AMK, CT
  Concurrence: [SOC] joined in part by SGB [Unlike the law school, the procedure employed by the undergraduate admissions office do not provide for a meaningful individualized review of applicants]; [CT] [A state’s use of racial discrimination in higher education admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause]

• Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard (02-337) (1/13; 4/2; 5/19) (CA11; Aff.; Unan.)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., does not bar removal of a suit from state to federal court.
  General Civil, Non-Business; Statutory
  Opinion: [DS] & Unan.
  
  
• Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film (02-428) (1/13; 4/2; 6/2) (CA9; Rev.; 8-0)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  Section 43 of the Latham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work.
  General Civil; Business; Statutory
  Opinion: [AS] & Unan [except SGB who took no part in the case]