skip navigation


Highlights of the Supreme Court's 2000-2001 Term

During the past term the Supreme Court ruled on:

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Controlled Substances

  • Medical Marijuana - U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (May 14, 2001)
    California passed a law allowing seriously ill people the ability to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (Cooperative) is an organization established to help distribute marijuana to qualified people. The Court ruled that the Cooperative violated the Controlled Substances Act's prohibition on distributing a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, because there is no medical necessity exception for Schedule I controlled substances. Further references.
  • State Tobacco Ad Regulations - Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly (June 28, 2001)
    The Court invalidated Massachusetts's regulations of outdoor and point-of-sale advertising for cigarettes as being pre-empted by the FCLAA and invalidated the outdoor advertising and school zone advertising regulations of smokeless tobacco and cigars as unconstitutional. Further references.

Criminal Procedure

  • Highway Checkpoints for Drugs - City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (November 28, 2000)
    The Court found highway checkpoint programs with the primary purpose of detecting evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing to be violative of the Fourth Amendment. Without some measure of individualized suspicion, only a limited line of exceptions exists to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of suspicionless seizures, such as a sobriety checkpoint with the primary purpose of removing drunk drivers from the roadways (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz) and checkpoints with the primary purpose of intercepting illegal aliens (US v. Martinez). Checkpoints with the primary purpose of detecting the presence of illegal drugs, which is ordinary criminal wrongdoing, do not fit the limited exception. Further references.
  • Warrantless Seizure - Illinois v. McArthur (February 20, 2001)
    A woman notified the police that her husband had marijuana in his home. Upon his exiting the home and standing on the front porch, police kept him from reentering unaccompanied until a search warrant could be obtained. The Court upheld the warrantless seizure because the police had probable cause to believe the home contained evidence of a crime and had a reasonable belief that the evidence would be destroyed if Respondent entered the home unaccompanied. Furthermore, the police reconciled the demands of personal privacy with their law enforcement needs and imposed a minimal intrusion on Respondent's personal privacy. Further references.
  • Warrantless Arrest for a Misdemeanor - Atwater v. Lago Vista (April 24, 2001)
    Petitioner, upon failing to secure her children and herself with a safety belt in violation of Texas law, was arrested, without a warrant, by an officer who witnessed the violation. The warrantless arrest for such a violation is expressly authorized by Texas statute. The Court upheld the arrest, even though the officer could have fined the woman instead, because the Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest based upon probable cause even when the offense is minor. Further references.
  • Heat Sensing Police Surveillance - Kyllo v. US (June 11, 2001)
    The Fourth Amendment is violated when "the Government uses a device [without a warrant] that is not in general use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." Specifically, the Court disallowed the warrantless use of a thermal imaging device to determine whether a home was radiating abnormal heat, because such a use is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Further references.

Civil Rights

  • Disparate-Impact Regulations - Alexander v. Sandoval (April 24, 2001)
    The Court determined that the disparate-impact regulations, promulgated by the Department of Justice under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 602 to effectuate § 601's prohibition on discrimination by recipients of federal funds, cannot be enforced by private citizens. Only Congress can create private rights of action under federal law. Section 602 does not contain such a granting clause. Furthermore, the granting clause present in § 601 does not apply to § 602 because the regulations developed under §602 forbid a greater amount of conduct than Congress prohibited under § 601. Further references.

Copyright

  • Electronic Publications - New York Times Co. v. Tasini (June 25, 2001)
    The Court determined that § 201(c) of the Copyright Act does not allow print publishers to release freelance writers' articles that appeared within the print publishers' publications, without the authors' permission, to electronic databases for publishing. The Court ruled that because the articles are distributed standing alone, without the context of the original publication, they are not "revisions" within the context of § 201(c), and their publication in an electronic database must be approved by the copyright holder, the author. Further references.

Disability Law

  • Private Right of Action Against States Under the ADA - Bd. of Trustees v. Garrett (February 21, 2001)
    By a vote of 5 to 4, the Court overruled Congress's explicit abrogation of States' immunity from suit under Title I of the ADA. Congress's abrogation power stems solely from § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment; otherwise the Eleventh Amendment bars states from suits brought by individuals. The Court could not find enough evidence in the legislative record to support the ADA as proper § 5 legislation. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a pattern of irrational state discrimination in the employment of the disabled. Therefore, Congress did not have the power to abrogate States' sovereign immunity, and state employees cannot recover damages from the State for failure to comply with the ADA. Further references.
  • ADA Requires Golf Carts for Disabled Persons in the PGA - PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (May 29, 2001)
    A large majority of the Court determined that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires the PGA to allow disabled persons the use of golf carts during qualification rounds for the PGA Tour. The Court reasoned that the golf courses utilized by the Tour were public, thus subject to the ADA requirements, and the use of carts by disabled persons, who are otherwise qualified, does not "fundamentally alter" the nature of the sport. Further references.

Equal Protection

  • Presidential Election - Bush v. Gore (December 12, 2000)
    By one vote, the Court ended the presidential election of 2000 by overturning the Florida Supreme Court and ending the manual recounts of thousands of "undervotes" in the state. The Court determined that the mechanisms implemented to conduct the recount did not satisfy equal protection and that the Florida courts did not have the time to implement alternative means which would recount the votes in compliance with equal protection. LII Backgrounder on Election 2000.
  • Citizenship of Children Born Abroad to Unwed Parents - Nguyen v. INS (June 11, 2001)
    Consistent with the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment, the Court validated a citizenship law that treats children born out of wedlock to non-citizen mothers abroad differently from children born out of wedlock to non-citizen fathers abroad. The disparate treatment based on sex is valid because of the differences in proving legitimate familial ties between a child and either parent. Further references.

First Amendment Rights (Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion)

  • Religious Groups Using Schools - Good News Club v. Milford Central School (June 11, 2001)
    The Court decided that public elementary schools, like public high schools and colleges, may not deny a religious group after-school access to school facilities if the group's activities otherwise fall within the guidelines defining the school's limited public forum. Further references.
  • Political Party Election Funding - FEC v. Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. (June 25, 2001)
    The Court found that political parties' First Amendment rights are not violated when their coordinated expenditures are limited. Unlike truly independent expenditures, which receive First Amendment protection, coordinated expenditures are functionally contributions, which do not receive full First Amendment protection. Further references.

Real Property

  • Regulatory Takings - Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (June 28, 2001)
    The Court ruled that passing title to land, which is regulated at the time of title transfer, does not bar a takings claim against the state. The new owner may have had notice as to the regulations and their impact on the land; however, there is no "expiration date on the Takings Clause" of the Constitution. Further references.