Matter May Clarify Line Between Protected Speech, Scope of School Power WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared split Monday over the line between individual freedom and institutional order in public schools, in a high-profile case that pits the First Amendment against school efforts to discourage drug use. In 2002, Joseph Frederick, a high school senior in Juneau, Alaska, greeted the Olympic torch during a school-sponsored event with a banner that blared: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." His principal said the sign promoted drug use and suspended Frederick for 10 days. Frederick said the message was politically protected speech and sued the principal for trampling his constitutional rights. [continues 378 words]
Justices: Police Without Warrant Must Stay Out If Residents Split on Consent WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Wednesday that police can't search a house without a warrant if one occupant invites them in but another objects. Writing for a sharply divided court, Justice David Souter said the ruling's logic was drawn from common social courtesies. The vote in the case was 5-3; Justice Samuel Alito, who wasn't on the court when the case was argued, didn't vote. [continues 449 words]
WASHINGTON - The love lost between Scott and Janet Randolph worked to the advantage of the police in the summer of 2001, when authorities investigating a domestic dispute between the two asked to search the couple's Georgia home. Scott Randolph said no. His wife said yes, and police went ahead with her consent. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court weighed whether the subsequent search -- in which Janet Randolph led them to drugs that resulted in her husband's arrest -- was unconstitutional. The case is the latest in a long line of opportunities for the court to refine the scope of permissible searches under the Fourth Amendment. But the question involved -- How much privacy can anyone expect in a home they share with someone else? -- inspired an animated debate among the justices. [continues 453 words]
Users in the 11 States That Allow It Can Still Face Federal Prosecution, Justices Ruled by 6-3, While Not Invalidating Laws in Those States. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, siding with federal authority over states' rights and terminally ill patients, said yesterday that the government can prosecute sick people who smoke marijuana as a painkiller - even in states where such use is legal. The 6-3 ruling, which crossed the court's usual ideological lines, does not invalidate laws in the 11 states that have approved medical marijuana, but it does deflate their power to protect users and doctors who prescribe the drug. [continues 835 words]
WASHINGTON - Siding with federal authority over states' rights and compassion for terminally ill patients, the Supreme Court said Monday that the government can prosecute sick people who smoke marijuana as a painkiller - even in states where such use is legal. The U.S. Constitution makes the laws of the United States the "supreme law of the land," and "if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court. It is up to Congress, he said, to change the law. [continues 553 words]
WASHINGTON - Siding with federal authority over states' rights and compassion for terminally ill patients, the Supreme Court said Monday that the government can prosecute sick people who smoke pot as a painkiller - even in states where such use is legal. The 6-3 ruling, which crossed the court's usual ideological lines, doesn't invalidate laws in the 10 states that have approved medical marijuana, but it does deflate their power to protect users and doctors who prescribe the drug. The court said the regulation of illicit drugs is a matter of interstate commerce, reserved exclusively to the federal government by the Constitution. That includes regulating local activities, such as the growing and consumption of medical marijuana, that could have an effect on interstate markets. So the federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970, which classifies marijuana as a drug unacceptable for any use, holds sway over any state provisions that say otherwise. [continues 700 words]
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court gave police broader search powers Monday, saying the Constitution doesn't protect motorists' vehicles from the "nosy" inquiries of drug-sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops. In a 6-2 ruling, the justices sided with Illinois state troopers who used a narcotics-detection dog to sniff around Roy Caballes' trunk after stopping him for speeding. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, sick with thyroid cancer, didn't take part in the case. It turned out that Caballes was transporting $250,000 in marijuana, which was found after the dog alerted officers to the stash. [continues 510 words]
The High Court Ruled That Judges Should Consult Federal Sentencing Guidelines Only on an Advisory Basis. A Flood of Inmate Appeals Is Likely. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court abandoned nearly two decades of federal sentencing practice Wednesday, saying judges no longer have to follow the complex system of guidelines that Congress designed in the 1980s to make jail terms tougher and more uniform. In a 5-4 decision, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, found that the federal guidelines ran afoul of the court's 2004 ruling that said the Sixth Amendment requires juries, not judges, to determine facts that can lengthen sentences. [continues 524 words]
Penalty Guidelines Set by Congress in '84 Are Advisory, Not Mandatory, They Ruled. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court abandoned nearly two decades of federal sentencing practice yesterday, saying judges no longer had to follow the complex system of guidelines that Congress designed in the 1980s to make prison terms tougher and more uniform. In a 5-4 decision, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, found that the federal guidelines ran afoul of the court's 2004 ruling in Blakely v. Washington that said the Sixth Amendment required juries, not judges, to determine facts that can lengthen sentences. [continues 818 words]
The Supreme Court Gives Federal Judges New Discretion to Set Sentences in Criminal Cases, With Guidelines to Be Used in an Advisory Maner. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court abandoned nearly two decades of federal sentencing practice Wednesday, saying judges no longer have to follow the complex system of guidelines that Congress designed in the 1980s to make jail terms tougher and more uniform. In a 5-4 decision, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, found that the federal guidelines ran afoul of the court's 2004 ruling that said the Sixth Amendment requires juries, not judges, to determine facts that can lengthen sentences. [continues 787 words]
Washington - The Supreme Court appears unlikely to shield medical marijuana users from federal drug laws, as justices expressed deep reservations Monday about sanctioning even limited use of illegal drugs. Some justices were skeptical that medicinal pot, which is permitted in 11 states, is always a noneconomic enterprise and separate from the illegal drug trade. Others seemed to dispute the idea that Congress could not regulate a substance that is considered contraband. Five justices seemed inclined to rule against the two California patients who sued to prevent the federal government from confiscating their drugs, with two others appearing more open to either side. A ruling is expected by June. [continues 216 words]
Justices Unsure About Allowing Even Limited Access To Illegal Drugs WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday appeared unlikely to shield medical marijuana users from federal drug laws, as justices expressed deep reservations about sanctioning even limited use of illegal drugs. Some justices were skeptical that medicinal pot, which is permitted in 11 states, is always a noneconomic enterprise and separate from the illegal drug trade. Others seemed to dispute the idea that Congress couldn't regulate a substance that's considered contraband. [continues 466 words]
Pivotal Case: The High Court's Decision Will Likely Settle Whether States' Laws Supercede a 1970 Federal Ban on Illegal Drugs WASHINGTON - The marijuana she smokes every two waking hours makes life bearable for Angel Raich. It eases the pain from an inoperable brain tumor, scoliosis and several other permanent disabilities. It's the only thing her doctors will prescribe, because she has severe allergies that cause violent reactions to traditional medicine. In Oakland, Calif., where Raich lives, that's no problem. A 1996 state law permits patients to grow and smoke marijuana on doctors' recommendations. [continues 658 words]
WASHINGTON - The marijuana she smokes every two waking hours makes life bearable for Angel Raich. It eases the pain from an inoperable brain tumor, scoliosis and several other permanent disabilities. It's the only thing her doctors will prescribe, because she has severe allergies that cause violent reactions to traditional medicine. In Oakland, Calif., where Raich lives, that's no problem. A 1996 state law permits patients to grow and smoke marijuana on doctors' recommendations. But on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that's likely to settle a conflict between that California law and a 1970 federal ban on illegal drugs. [continues 394 words]
Issue Is Federal Law Versus State Law WASHINGTON - The marijuana she smokes every two waking hours makes life bearable for Angel Raich. It eases the pain from an inoperable brain tumor, scoliosis and several other permanent disabilities. It's the only thing her doctors will prescribe, because she has severe allergies that cause violent reactions to traditional medicine. In Oakland, Calif., where Raich lives, that's no problem. A 1996 state law permits patients to grow and smoke marijuana on doctors' recommendations. [continues 389 words]
Searches Violate Privacy Rights, Lawyer In Illinois Case Says WASHINGTON - An hour of debate at the Supreme Court on Wednesday about the scope and limits of the Fourth Amendment and personal privacy boiled down to a five-word question: Is a sniff a search? Roy Caballes said it is, especially when police stop you for speeding, then have a canine unit sniff around your car for drugs. In Caballes' case, the dog found $256,000 worth of marijuana in the trunk. Police arrested Caballes, and he was sentenced to 12 years in prison. [continues 486 words]
Confusion Over Judges' Authority Has Had Unusually Swift Reaction WASHINGTON - Reacting to what has been a summer of chaos in lower courts, the Supreme Court said Monday that it will clarify whether a June ruling that bars judges from unilaterally increasing jail terms might render current federal sentencing guidelines unconstitutional. The justices will hear two cases Oct. 4, the first day of their new term, that address the fallout from Blakely vs. Washington, a bombshell ruling from the last days of their previous term. [continues 297 words]
Already, Judges Giving Lighter Jail Terms; Appeals Expected WASHINGTON - For almost 15 years, federal sentencing guidelines made the rules clear. Now they're in chaos, due to an unexpected Supreme Court decision that has upset sentencing practices in federal courts nationwide. In Blakely v. Washington, the justices last week stripped judges of their long-held power to increase sentences based on aggravating factors, saying the constitution reserves those determinations for juries. The ruling already is producing lighter jail terms. It could inspire appeals by up to 250,000 inmates who were sentenced under the plan the Supreme Court rejected. It also could force U.S. attorneys to rethink how they prosecute offenders, drag Congress into a messy effort to rewrite federal sentencing laws and perhaps require fast-track reconsideration of the issue by the high court. History may first remember the Supreme Court term that just ended for the justices' sharp criticism of the Bush administration's terrorism detentions and its eloquent assertions about the pre-eminence of civil liberties. [continues 718 words]
Federal Judges Forced To Give Lighter Jail Terms; Could Lead To Rewriting Of Laws WASHINGTON - U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin says criminal sentencing is at the heart of his job, something that ``comes up daily'' and consumes a lot of his time. For almost 15 years, federal guidelines at least made the rules of sentencing clear. Now they're in chaos, due to an unexpected Supreme Court decision that has upset sentencing practices in Goodwin's courtroom and in federal courts nationwide. [continues 740 words]
Justices Said Facts of the Case Must Be Reviewed Before An Unremorseful Criminal Gets More Time. WASHINGTON - A bitterly divided Supreme Court yesterday barred judges from unilaterally bumping up sentences for convicted criminals. Instead, the justices said in a 5-4 decision, before a robber gets more time for showing no remorse or a rapist draws a longer sentence for being excessively cruel, a jury must find that those aggravating factors were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling extends the logic the court used in 2002 for death sentences to all other crimes. That logic has its roots in a 2000 decision that said juries, not judges, needed to make all fact-finding decisions that enhance penalties. [continues 524 words]
