Influential Supreme Court Decisions

The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its 2005-2006 session on June 30. Below, find summaries of some of the most significant cases, links to the court documents and Washington Post stories explaining the issues at play.

---

DNA Evidence: In House v. Bell, convicted murderer Paul Gregory House alleges that DNA evidence proves his innocence. House, whose appeal process has run out, is seeking a new trial based on the fact that DNA testing proved that body fluids on a murder victim's clothes belonged to her husband. The prosecution argues that given other elements of the case, including evidence of the victim's blood on House's jeans and witness testimony, the DNA evidence is of secondary importance.

High Court to Consider DNA Innocence Claim, The Post, Jan. 7, 2006

Blood Trail Is Crux of Forensic Mystery, The Post, Feb. 6, 2006

---

Wetlands: In Rapanos et al. v. U.S. and Carabell et al. v. Army Corps of Engineers, Michigan land developers John Rapanos and June Carabell are challenging the Clean Water Act of 1972. The law gives the federal government the power to control the discharge of pollutants into "navigable waters." The two litigants sought to fill in their wetlands lying near non-navigable waters, so that they could build on their property. However, the federal government told both that their proximity to navigable waters prohibited them from building on their land. At issue is what constitutes "waters of the United States" per the Clean Water Act.

Court Hears Water Act Arguments, The Post, Feb. 22, 2006

---

Campaign Finance: Randall et al. v. Sorrell et al., Vermont Republican State Committee v. Sorrell et al. and, Sorrell et al. v. Randall et al. challenge a 1997 Vermont law that caps how much a candidate for state office can spend. The law limits candidates for governor to a spending limit of no more than $300,000 per two-year election cycle. Candidates for lieutenant governor are limited to spending no more than $100,000. According to Vermont's Republican Party and other political activists, the law violates their First Amendment right to free speech.

High Court to Decide Campaign Finance Cases, The Post, Sept. 28, 2005

Campaign Finance Cases Weighed, The Post, March 1, 2006

---

Texas Remapping: League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Rick Perry et al., Travis County, Texas et al. v. Rick Perry et al., Eddie Jackson et al. v. Rick Perry et al. and, GI Forum of Texas et al. v. Rick Perry et al. challenges the 2003 congressional redistricting plan in Texas. The plan was designed to give Texas's House delegation a Republican majority to match the state's overall voting preference. After the 2000 census the state's delegation grew from 30 seats to 32, creating a Republican majority in Texas and a boost to GOP control of the House. Opponents of the plan say it is so partisan that it violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and dilutes Hispanic and black voting strength in some communities.

White House Defends Texas's GOP Remapping Plan to Justices, The Post, Feb. 2, 2006

---

Lethal Injection: In Hill v. McDonough convicted murderer Clarence Edward Hill is seeking a stay of his execution by challenging the constitutional validity of lethal injection. Hill alleges that death by lethal injection will subject him to "excruciating pain before death."

High Court to Hear Lethal-Injection Case, The Post, Jan. 26, 2006

Court Weighs Procedural Issue in Death Row Lawsuit, The Post, April 27, 2006

---

Military Tribunals: In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Osama bin Laden's former personal chauffeur Salim Ahmed Hamdan claims that his trial by a military commission violates his rights under the Geneva Convention and that President Bush violated the constitutional provision allowing Congress to form tribunals below the Supreme Court.

Court Case Challenges Power of President, The Post, March 26, 2006

---

Consular Access: Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon / Bustillo v. Johnson considers two separate cases in which foreigners were not informed of their right to contact their consulate following arrest under the Vienna Convention. Mexican national Moises Sanchez-Llamas is seeking to suppress incriminating statements he made that led to him being charged with attempted murder. Honduran Mario Bustillo, convicted of murder, requested a new trial after the Honduran consulate provided videotape footage of another man admitting to the crime.

Court Hears Arguments In Consular Access Case, The Post, March 30, 2006

---

Insanity Defense: Clark v. Arizona challenges Eric Michael Clark's murder conviction on the grounds that the Arizona insanity law's refusal to consider mental disease or defect violated Clark's right to due process under the 14th Amendment. The state law only allowed consideration of evidence related to proving the defendant did not know right from wrong. Clark understood right from wrong, but his lawyers say he made the judgment in the context of an abnormal state of reality.

Supreme Court to Review Insanity Defense, The Post, April 20, 2006

---

Privacy Rights: In Hudson v. Michigan Booker T. Hudson Jr. seeks to suppress evidence of illegal drugs found in his home, citing a violation of the "knock and announce" rule rooted in the Fourth Amendment. Hudson was convicted of drug possession after officers burst into his home three to five seconds after announcing their arrival. The prosecution argues that the evidence would have been found even if police provided more time before entry.

Privacy Case May Rest on Alito Vote, The Post, May 19, 2006

---