The U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Begay v. U.S. case.  The court found that drunk driving does not constitute a "violent felony" that can be used to enhance prison sentences.  Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Souter and Thomas joined.  The opinion for this case is available here.

The recent SCOTUS ruling on the legality of lethal injections, Baze v. Rees, was unusual in that a majority of the justices (4 out of 7) cited to Internet websites.  There were a total of 13 references to online materials, with Justice Stevens citing to a law review article appearing only in its electronic format.  The blog, Law School Innovation, discusses how this case may be the court's most "Internet-friendly" and represents an increasing reliance upon electronic resources in the court.  The opinion of the case is available via the SCOTUS website, and this discussion is found on the blog Law School Innovation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today in the case, Virginia v. Moore, that evidence discovered during a police search following an arrest which violated Virginia state law is permissable at trial.  The decision is important in defining the constitutional limits of probable cause.

• Supreme Court broadens police searches -- CNN
• Supreme Court broadens police searches -- Law Librarian Blog
• Court Opinion -- FindLaw

The Supreme Court released today its decision on the Boumediene v. Bush case.  At issue was whether non-citizens held in military custody have a constitutional right to habeas relief.  The ruling represents a major loss for the Bush Administration.

The nearly 70-page decision, written by Justice Kennedy, holds that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay do have the right to habeas relief to challenge their detention.  It also found that the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), passed by Congress, is inadequate and not a viable alternative to traditional habeas.

Justice Kennedy writes in the majority opinion:

It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive order for the duration of a conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history. See Oxford Companion to American Military History 849 (1999). The detainees, moreover, are held in a territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government. Under these circumstances the lack of a precedent on point is no barrier to our holding.

We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us, Congress must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause. . . . The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of the writ; and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not argued that it is. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention. 

Interestingly, Justice Scalia took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench stating the court's decision was an "incursion into military affairs" and that America is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision will "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed".

Court says Guantanamo detainees have right to challenge detention -- Washington Post

Key quotes from Boumediene v. Bush -- Volokh Conspiracy

Government loses Boumedience 5-4 -- Volokh Conspiracy

Boumediene v. Bush (opinion) -- SCOTUS Blog

Rasul v. Bush (opinion - established that court has jurisdiction over detainees at Guantanamo Bay) -- Cornell Legal Information Institute

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled today in, Kennedy v. Louisiana, that the death penalty cannot be given to those convicted of child rape.  The case is seen as an important indication of the future of the death penalty in the United States.  It continues a pattern in the court, beginning with the 1977 Coker v. Georgia decision, which banned the death penalty for the rape of adult women.  The court ruled that the death penalty is only an appropriate punishment when the crimes results in a death.  From the opinion, "[d]ifficulties in administering the penalty to assure against its arbitrary and capricious application require adherence to a rule reserving its use, at this stage of evolving standards and in cases of crimes against individuals, for crimes that take the life of the victim."

Court Opinion -- SCOTUS Blog

Kennedy v. Louisiana decided -- PrawfsBlog

Supreme Court rules death penalty "cruel and unusual" punishment for man who raped a child -- AmericaBlog

Kennedy v. Louisiana -- Volokh Conspiracy

We cannot dismiss the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape -- Althouse

The Supreme Court of the United States announced their decision today in District of Columbia v. Heller.  The court found that the second amendment is indeed a personal right, and that restrictions on handguns (such as those in D.C.), are unconstitutional.  Here are some reactions from legal bloggers.

Heller, Steven's dissent, and the "Historian's Brief" -- Volokh Conspiracy

Are guns the keys to the kingdom for McCain? -- Atlantic.com (Marc Ambinder)

Second Amendment Victory -- The Weekly Standard

Court finds individual right to bear arms -- Lawyers, Guns, and Money

My sense of the bottom-line from Heller -- SCOTUS Blog (Tom Goldstein)

Heller -- Obsidian Wings

Hooray, now we can go hunting -- Slate.com (Rosa Brooks)

Law and the political order -- The American Prospect (Ezra Klein)

Guns in America -- Thought Experiment (Bryan Appleyard)

Court opinion -- SCOTUS blog

Douglas Berman (a law professor at Ohio State University) in his blog, Sentencing Law and Policy, writes on the criminal law implications of today's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.  He writes how the court found possession of handguns to be an individual right which can be exercised by all Americans and how this impacts those convicted of gun crimes or have sentencing enhancements.

From the blog:

[I]t would seem that the majority holds that, pursuant to the Second Amendment, "all Americans" have an "individual right to use arms for self-defense." And, the Second Amendment would be most problematically transgressed when this right is severely restricted in the "home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" through the threat of years in prison rathen than just a minor fine.

As regular readers know, I think all these assertions add up to making constitutionally questionable the threat of severe sentences on felons in possession of firearms. After all, felons are Americans with a need to protect themselves and their families through keeping guns in their home. And yet, all felons (even non-violent ones like Lewis Libby and Martha Stewart) face the threat of 10 years in federal prison for just possessing a firearm.

Justice Scalia sells out felon gun rights, but on what basis exactly? -- Sentencing Law and Policy

Several notable legal bloggers have drawn attention to a section in the opinion of District of Columbia v. Heller and how it may be advancing a feminist argument against gun control.  They are specifically pointing out the sentence, "it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun", and how the court considered gender in its decision. 

The passage from the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia:

It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

Guns are a feminist issue -- The Atlantic (Megan McArdle)

Scalia and women's rights: A handgun "is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun" -- Althouse

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, cited to a Bob Dylan song lyric in his dissent on a case involving pay phone operators and long distance phone companies.  Adam Liptak at the New York Times writes a humorous article about this case, and others which has cited to song lyrics.

From the NY Times:

''The absence of any right to the substantive recovery means that respondents cannot benefit from the judgment they seek and thus lack Article III standing,'' Chief Justice Roberts wrote. '' 'When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.' Bob Dylan, Like a Rolling Stone, on Highway 61 Revisited (Columbia Records 1965).''

Alex B. Long, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and perhaps the nation's leading authority on the citation of popular music in judicial opinions, said this was almost certainly the first use of a rock lyric to buttress a legal proposition in a Supreme Court decision. ''It's a landmark opinion,'' Professor Long said.

In the lower courts, according to a study Professor Long published in the Washington & Lee Law Review last year, Mr. Dylan is by far the most cited songwriter. He has been quoted in 26 opinions. Paul Simon is next, with 8 (12 if you count those attributed to Simon & Garfunkel). Bruce Springsteen has 5.

But Mr. Dylan has only once before been cited as an authority on Article III standing, which concerns who can bring a lawsuit in federal court. His key contribution to legal discourse has been in another area.

''The correct rule on the necessity of expert testimony has been summarized by Bob Dylan: 'You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows,' '' a California appeals court wrote in 1981, citing ''Subterranean Homesick Blues.'' Eighteen other decisions have cited that lyric.

The Chief Justice, Dylan, and the Disappearing Double Negative -- NY Times (via WestLaw)

The Federalist Society does a yearly review of the cases decided by the Supreme Court.  This year's review was recorded by C-SPAN and is now available online in RealPlayer format.  Additionally, the American Constitution Society also hosted a panel reviewing this year's SCOTUS decisions which is also available via C-SPAN.

Federalist Society Yearly Review of the Court -- C-SPAN (RealPlayer format)

American Constitution Society Yearly Review of the Court -- C-SPAN (RealPlayer format)