Overview of the 2005 Supreme Court Term

The 2005 Term had been surrounded by anticipation and drama, with the appointment of John Roberts as Chief Justice and Samuel A. Alito Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.

The Court began the 2005 term with a series of important civil liberties cases on its docket involving abortion, free speech, the free exercise of religion, search and seizure, the right to die, military recruiting on university campuses, and disability rights. Other cases involving national security, the constitutionality of military commissions, and campaign finance have been added during the term.

The Roberts Court ended its first year by holding that the system of military tribunals established by the Bush Administration to try Guantánamo detainees violates the Geneva conventions and U.S. law,  yet another rebuke to the Administration's efforts to rewrite the legal rules in the guise of fighting terrorism.

Of the term as a whole, the ACLU's national legal director, Steven R. Shapiro, observed, "Thus far, Roberts and Alito have pretty much performed as expected. But in the short run, at least, their votes may be less important on a range of critical issues than Justice Kennedy, who now holds the balance of power on a closely divided Court."

> Summary of 2005 Supreme Court Term
> ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro, 2005 Term Preview

Supreme Court Cases

Military Commissions

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (Decided)

6/29/2006 - Challenge to the validity of the military commissions established by President Bush to try detainees as part of the war against terrorism. DECIDED

Death Penalty

Lawrence v. Florida (Decided)

6/27/2006 - Reviewing whether, and under what circumstances, the one year deadline for filing a federal habeas petition can be subject to "equitable tolling." DECIDED

Free Speech

Randall v. Sorrell (Decided)

6/26/2006 - Challenge to Vermont's campaign finance law and to the constitutionality of expenditure limits under the First Amendment. DECIDED

Immigrants' Rights

Lopez v. Gonzales and Toledo-Flores v. United States (Decided)

6/21/2006 - Whether a state conviction for drug possession that would be a misdemeanor under federal law can nonetheless be treated as an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes, which leads to serious adverse consequences, including ineligibilitiy for political asylum and cancellation of removal. DECIDED

Womens' Rights

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (Decided)

3/8/2006 - Reviewing the standard for retaliation in employment discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. DECIDED

Right to Fair Procedures

Beard v. Banks (Decided)

2/17/2006 - Reviewing whether maximum security prisoners in long-term segregation can be denied access to all non-religious newspapers and magazines. DECIDED

Prisoners' Rights

Woodford v. Ngo (Decided)

2/3/2006 - Reviewing whether federal law bars a prisoner who files a late administrative claim from ever challenging the conditions of his confinement in federal court. DECIDED

Reproductive Freedom

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood (Decided)

1/19/2006 - Reviewing the legal standard by which courts consider abortion restrictions and whether laws regulating abortion must protect women's health. DECIDED

Search and Seizure

Hudson v. Michigan (Decided)

1/11/2006 - Reviewing whether the exclusionary rule applies to evidence seized following a violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule. DECIDED

Immigrants' Rights

Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales (Decided)

12/21/2005 - Reviewing whether a provision of the 1996 Immigration Act applies retroactively to limit the discretionary relief available to individuals who re-entered the country illegally after their deportation but before the Act's passage. DECIDED

Criminal Justice

Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (Decided)

12/21/2005 - These cases raise the question of how to determine whether evidence is "testimonial" for purposes of the Confrontation Clause, and thus inadmissible at trial unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose "testimony" is being offered by the prosecution. The ACLU brief urges the Court to adopt an objective standard under which a statement would be treated as "testimonial" if a reasonable person under the circumstances would understand that the statement could be used for criminal investigation or prosecution. DECIDED

Search and Seizure

Samson v. California (Decided)

12/13/2005 - This case reviews whether the Fourth Amendment permits a police officer to search a parolee on the public streets without any basis for suspicion. DECIDED

Free Speech, Lesbian and Gay Rights

Rumsfeld v. FAIR

12/6/2005 - Reviewing the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, which cuts off federal funding to any university that bars military recruiters for failure to comply with the university's nondiscrimination policies.

Free Speech

Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC (Decided)

11/21/2005 - Whether the ACLU can be barred from broadcasting advertisements prior to an election that name a federal candidate, even though the ACLU has never taken a position on an election in its 85-year history. DECIDED

Goodman v. Georgia (Decided)

11/9/2005 - Reviewing whether state prisons that discriminate against prisoners with disabilities can be sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. DECIDED

Religious Freedom

Gonzales v. UDV (Decided)

11/1/2005 - Reviewing a church's claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that it cannot be barred fom importing a hallucinogenic tea used in its sacramental ceremonies. DECIDED

Garcetti v. Ceballos (Decided)

10/12/2005 - Reviewing whether a government whistleblower forfeits all First Amendment protection by speaking out in the course of his or her job. DECIDED

Gonzales v. Oregon (Decided)

10/5/2005 - Reviewing whether the federal government improperly undermined Oregon's Death With Dignity Act by threatening doctors with revocation of their license to prescribe narcotic drugs if they assisted in implementing the Act. DECIDED

Edmonds v. DOJ

8/4/2005 - Reviewing whether a government whistleblower forfeits all First Amendment protection by speaking out in the course of his or her job.

Statistics image