|
Home :
Supreme Court
:
2004 Term
|
The Supreme Court ended its 2004 Term by strongly reaffirming the principle that government should not be in the business of promoting religion.
The end of the Term may also have signaled the end of an era, with rumors swirling that Chief Justice Rehnquist may soon step down after leading the Court for 19 years. Whether or not those rumors are accurate, it was a Term in which the Chief Justice was on the losing side of many of the ideological battles he has fought so vigorously throughout his judicial tenure.
"The Court's civil liberties record this year was a surprisingly
positive one," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national legal director. "In
contrast to past years, the Justices seemed less anxious to undermine meaningful
civil rights enforcement, more skeptical about the death penalty, and more
willing to look at international law for whatever guidance it can provide in
resolving fundamental human rights issues." Read
more >>
FEATURES
The
2004 Supreme Court Preview, by Steven R. Shapiro,
ACLU Legal Director
Revisiting
Felon Disfranchisement Laws, by Frank Askin, General
Counsel
The
Juvenile Death Penalty: How Far Have We Evolved? by
Vivian Berger, ACLU General Counsel |
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/RIGHTS OF THE POOR
Kowalski v. Tesmer
(9/8/2004)
Reviewing whether indigent criminal defendants in Michigan are entitled to appointed counsel on their first appeal, even if they plead guilty. DECIDED
Halbert v. Michigan
(2/17/2005)
Raising the same issue as Kowalski, which was dismissed on standing grounds. DECIDED
DEATH PENALTY
Roper v. Simmons
(9/8/2004)
Challenging the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty. DECIDED
|