The Supreme Court's 2004-2005 term, dominated by months of speculation over Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's health and retirement plans, will end as soon as next Monday. As usual, several of the most contentious cases will be among the final rulings.
After announcing six decisions on Monday, the court has scheduled Thursday and next Monday as decision days. If necessary, the justices will add another day next week. These are the remaining cases:
TEN COMMANDMENTS Perhaps the most closely watched cases are two that require the court to define the constitutional boundaries for governmental display of religious symbols. The appeal in Van Orden v. Perry, No. 03-1500, challenges the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. In McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 03-1693, the question is the constitutionality of displays on the walls of two Kentucky county courthouses that include the text of the Ten Commandments along with historical documents, including the Mayflower Compact.
FILE SHARING In a case of enormous interest to the entertainment and recording industries, the question in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster Ltd., No. 04-480, is whether the companies that provide the software that enables computer users to share illegally downloaded files of copyrighted material are themselves liable for copyright infringement.
INTERNET ACCESS In National Cable and Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, No. 04-277, the court will review the Federal Communications Commission's determination that companies offering broadband access through cable modem service do not have to permit competing Internet service providers to share their lines. Industry groups say the shape of future Internet access could depend on this decision.
PRIVATE PROPERTY A closely watched case from New London, Conn., questions the government's use of the power of eminent domain to take and pay for private property for the purpose of fostering private economic development. The question in the case, Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108, is whether such development fits the definition of "public use" for which the Fifth Amendment permits a "taking" of private property.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE The court will decide in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278, whether a police department can be held liable for violating a victim's rights when harm ensues from a failure to enforce a court's order of protection. In this case, a woman's estranged husband violated a protective order and kidnapped and killed their three daughters.
JURISDICTION The court will decide whether the federal courts have jurisdiction over certain kinds of class-action cases. Two related appeals are likely to be decided by a single decision. They are Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods Inc., No. 04-79, and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services Inc., No. 04-70.
WATER RIGHTS In Orff v. United States, No. 03-1566, the court will decide whether the federal government can be sued by farmers claiming a breach of contract in the delivery of water from the Central Valley reclamation project in California.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL The question in Halbert v. Michigan, No. 03-10198, is whether indigent defendants have a right to a government-appointed lawyer to challenge aspects of a guilty plea.
HABEAS CORPUS In another criminal appeal, Gonzalez v. Crosby, No. 04-6432, the question is whether a defendant can use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a means for reopening certain earlier judgments.
TIME LIMITS In Mayle v. Felix, No. 04-563, the question is how the one-year time limit in the federal law governing habeas corpus petitions applies to a defendant's effort to add new claims to an existing petition.
DEATH PENALTY In Bell v. Thompson, No. 04-514, a death penalty case from Tennessee, the court will address the authority of a federal appeals court, on the basis of newly discovered evidence that is favorable to the defense, to change its mind and order a case reopened as the state is preparing to carry out a death sentence.