Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. He's joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer. Dissents: Justices Scalia, Thomas & Alito
Listen to Argument
Read Decision

 
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, Governor of Texas
Argument Date: March 1, 2006
Decision Date: June 28, 2006
The Supreme Court upheld most of the redrawn Texas redistricting map. It rejected the claim from African American voters that District 24 (Dallas area) violated the Voting Rights Act. It also upheld the rights of states to redraw congressional districts within the 10-year period of the U.S. Census. The Court did find that redrawn District 23 represented by Republican Henry Bonilla was unconstitutional because it violated the rights of Hispanic voters and was invalid under the Voting Rights Act. The Court did not rule on whether all partisan gerrymander claims are beyond judicial review. In 2003 the Republican-led Texas legislature redrew the district map. The plan was spearheaded by then House Leader Tom Delay (R).

Judgement: Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part; Vacated in Part
Read Decision

 
Randall v. Sorrell
Argument Date: February 28, 2006
Decision Date: June 26, 2006
Vermont's Act 64 limits both the amount that candidates may spend on their campaigns and the amount that candidates, individuals, organizations & political parties may contribute to campaigns. The U.S. District Court held that the expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. The Second Circuit reversed that decision. That Court decided that all of the Act's contribution limits are constitutional. The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Vermont campaign finance law violates the First Amendment.

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. He's joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts & Scalia. Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg dissented.
Read Decision

 
Kansas v. Marsh
Argument Date: December 7, 2005
Reargued: April 25, 2006
Decision Date: June 26, 2006
A Kansas jury convicted Marsh of capital murder and sentenced him to death, after finding that aggravating circumstances were not outweighed by mitigating circumstances. Marsh appealed on the grounds that the Kansas law makes an unconstitutional presumption in favor of death by imposing the death penalty when aggraviting and mitigating circumstances are equal. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that Kansas' weighing equation violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court reversed the Kansas Supreme Court's decision. The Court held that the Kansas law is rationally narrowed enough to not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Justice Thomas delivered opinion of the Court. Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Chief Justice Roberts joined. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer dissented.
Read Decision

 
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
Argument Date: April 18, 2006
Decision Date: June 26, 2006
Gonzalez-Lopez hired attorney Low to represent him on a federal drug charge. The Court denied Low's application and another attorney represented Gonzalez-Lopez. The jury found him guilty. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court's refusal to admit Gonzalez-Lopez's chosen attorney was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to be representated by paid counsel of his choosing, and that this violation was not subject to harmless-error review. The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that Gonzalez-Lopez did have a right to paid counsel of his own choosing and the Sixth Amendment was violated.

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. He's joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kennedy, Thomas, & Alito dissented.
Read Decision

 
Rapanos v. United States,
Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Argument Date: February 21, 2006
Decision Date: June 19, 2006
The cases, both from Michigan, challenge regulators’ definition of federally protected wetlands under both the Clean Water Act (CWA) & the Constitution. The United States brought civil charges against Rapanos and Carabell, who own property in several counties in Michigan, alleging that they illegally filled 54 acres of land that qualify as wetlands under the CWA. A district court upheld the U.S. and found Rapanos and Carabell had violated the CWA by backfilling the wetlands. The Supreme Court, however, found that the U.S. may have relied on overly broad regulatory definitions in order to bring the Rapanos' and Carabell's land under the CWA and sent the cases back to lower courts to be reconsidered.
Read Decision

 
Hill v. McDonough, Interim Sec., FL DOC
Argument Date: April 26, 2006
Decision Date: June 12, 2006
Clarence Hill challenged the constitutionality of the drug sequence the State of Florida would use to execute him by lethal injection. The District Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals saw the petition as a writ for habeas corpus and ordered it dismissed. The question before the Supreme Court was whether Hill's claim must be brought by an action for a writ of habeas corpus or whether it could have proceeded as an action for relief. The Court decided that prison inmates condemned to die can make last-minute claims that the chemicals used are too painful.

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. It was a unanimous decision.
Read Decision

 
House v. Bell
Argument Date: January 11, 2006
Decision Date: June 12, 2006
Paul G. House sought to be released from Tennessee's death row because of what his appeal petition to the court calls "powerful new evidence of innocence." House's attorneys argued that DNA tests show that the semen found on murder victim Carolyn Muncey's clothes belonged to her husband, Hubert Muncey, and not to House, as a jury in Union County, Tenn., found 20 years ago.The Federal District Court denied habeas relief, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court reconsidered the rules for permitting appeals by death row inmates who claim they have been wrongly convicted, in the case of a death row inmate who says DNA evidence proves he did not commit the crime of which he was found guilty in 1985. The issue before the Supreme Court was not the question of House's guilt or innocence, but how strong his case for innocence must be to win a new hearing in federal court.

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Stevens, Souter, Gunsburg and Breyer joined. Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. Justice Alito did not take part in this decision.
Read Decision