SCORECARD -- A Round-Up of Supreme Court Decisions

So far in the 2007-2008 Supreme Court term the justices have heard oral arguments for 70 cases and returned opinions in 37 of them. One case was dismissed. Below is a quick look at those cases and how the high court ruled. The court is not scheduled to hear arguments for the rest of the term, which ends June 23.

#38) United States v. Ressam (decided May 19, 2008)

Justice John Paul Stevens authored the 8-1 opinion of the court in favor of the government. This is the case of the Millennium Bomber versus the U.S. attorney general, and the victory goes to AG Michael Mukasey, who was making his first and likely only appearance before the high court. Convicted terrorist Ahmed Ressam sought a sentencing reduction for his conviction in plotting to blow up Los Angeles International Airport in December 1999. At issue was very technical language about one of the counts in conviction, language that Justice Stevens declared need not result in the consultation of "dictionary definitions" to reach a ruling in favor of the government.

#37) United States v. Williams (decided May 19, 2008)

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the 7-2 opinion of the court in favor of the government. This case challenged the nation's child pornography law. The high court ruled an earlier version of the law infringed on protected speech but this time determined that the PROTECT Act is constitutional. The challenge came from a Florida man who bragged to an undercover cop about having lurid pictures of his two year old daughter. He in fact had no children. Nonetheless, he was charged and convicted of peddling in child porn based on his assertion to the cop. Justice Scalia wrote, "The Act before us does not prohibit advocacy of child pornography, but only offers to provide or requests to obtain it. There is no doubt that this prohibition falls well within constitutional bounds."

Justice David Souter -- joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- wrote the dissent and contends the law affords the possibility of prosecuting someone for pandering material that is not in fact illegal. "No one can seriously assume that after today's decision the government will go prosecuting defendants for child pornography (requiring a showing that a real child is pictured); it will prosecute for merely proposing a pornography transaction manifesting or inducing the belief that a photo is real child pornography, free of any need to demonstrate that any extant underlying photo does show a real child."

#36) Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (decided May 19, 2008)

Justice David Souter announced the 7-2 judgment of the court in favor of Kentucky. The Bluegrass State, like many others, exempts from taxation profits made by holders of home state municipal bonds. These states, however, tax their residents on the proceeds they make on bonds issued by out-of-states municipalities. A Kentucky couple sued the state claiming this inequality is a violation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The high court in a fractured opinion disagreed. Justice Souter wrote, "For the better part of two centuries states and their political subdivisions have issued bonds for public purposes, and for nearly half that time some states have exempted interest on their own bonds from their state income taxes, which are imposed on bond interest from other states. The question here is whether Kentucky's version of this differential tax scheme offends the Commerce Clause. We hold that it does not."

In his dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy -- joined by Justice Samuel Alito -- decried the "protectionist" bent of the court's ruling. "Protectionist interests always want the laws they pass, even if their fellow citizens bear the burden, for they are positioned to profit from the barrier," Kennedy wrote. He added that "today the court weakens the preventative force of the Commerce Clause and invites other protectionist laws, thus risking further dislocations and market inefficiencies based on the origin of products and commodities that should be traded nationwide and without local trade barriers."

#35) United States v. Rodriquez (decided May 19, 2008)

Justice Samuel Alito authored the 6-3 opinion in favor of the government. Gino Rodriquez was busted in Washington for having a firearm which as a convicted felon is a federal no-no. He was sentenced to a 15-year minimum term behind bars based on guidelines set forth in the Armed Career Criminal Act. ACCA says three time serious offenders get an added sentencing boost. But there was a dispute over the ACCA qualifications for some of Rodriquez's prior convictions. The government argued and the court agreed that sentencing enhancements made by the state court for his convictions can be used to assert a similar boost under ACCA. Justice David Souter in his dissent joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg contend the wording of the law is vague and because of that lenity should be afforded to Rodriquez.

#34) Gonzalez v. United States (decided May 12, 2008)

8-1. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of the Government. Homero Gonzales was charged (and convicted) with five felony drug counts. His jury selection was conducted by a magistrate judge not a trial judge. At the time of jury selection the magistrate judge asked Gonzalez's lawyer if it was ok to proceed--the lawyer said yes and jury selection took place without incident. After his conviction, Gonzalez argued that he personally should have been asked if it was ok for the magistrate judge to conduct jury selection. The Fifth Circuit ruled personal approval was not necessary and the High Court affirmed.

#33) Crawford v. Marion County (IN) Election Board (decided April 28, 2008)

Justice John Paul Stevens announced the 6-3 judgment of the court in favor of Indiana. In the most significant voting case before the court since Bush v. Gore, the court validated Indiana's law mandating voters show a valid government issued picture ID before casting their ballots. The law was ostensibly passed to protect against fraud at the polls. But opponents argue the Republican majority state Legislature passed the law (on a party-line vote) to keep older and poor residents from the polls. The court disagreed with Justice Stevens writing, "There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters ... While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear."

#32) Virginia v. Moore (decided April 23, 2008)

Justice Antonin Scalia authored the unanimous opinion in favor of Virginia. David Moore was pulled over by Portsmouth, Va., police for driving on a suspended license. He was also put into custody, contrary to state law for that misdemeanor violation, and searched. Upon the search, police found 16 grams of crack cocaine. Moore argued the search was unreasonable under Virginia law and therefore was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The court disagreed with Justice Scalia writing, "We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for more than half a century. When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety."

#31) Baze v. Rees (decided April 16, 2008)

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the court's 7-2 opinion against Ralph Baze. Justices Alito, Stevens, Breyer, Scalia and Thomas authored concurring opinions. Justice Souter joined a dissent authored by Justice Ginsburg. The court ruled that the three chemical process Kentucky uses to execute the condemned is constitutional. The ruling ended the undeclared moratorium on executions and on the day of the announcement at least one governor (Tim Kaine of Virginia) said they would begin again. Roberts wrote, "We too agree that petitioners have not carried their burden of showing that the risk of pain from maladministration of a concededly humane lethal injection protocol, and the failure to adopt untried and untested alternatives, constitute cruel and unusual punishment."

In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg countered that "the constitutionality of Kentucky's protocol therefore turns on whether inmates are adequately anesthetized by the first drug in the protocol, sodium thiopental. Kentucky's system is constitutional, the plurality states, because petitioners have not shown that the risk of an inadequate dose of the first drug is substantial. I would not dispose of the case so swiftly given the character of the risk at stake."

#30) Burgess v. United States (decided April 16, 2008)

The unanimous was authored by. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in favor of the government. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" is a familiar phrase to anyone who ever had a police officer speak in his or her grade school classroom. This case shows how the past crimes of Keith Burgess caught up with him into more time behind bars. The convicted drug dealer's past state convictions were used against him in federal court to double his minimum sentence. He argued that because South Carolina didn't classified his prior bad acts as felonies he shouldn't be subject to the federal sentencing bump for repeat offenders. The high court disagreed thus keeping in place the mandatory 20 year minimum sentence.

#29) Begay v. United States (decided April 16, 2008)

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the 6-3 opinion in favor of Larry Begay. This sentencing case looked at drunk driving and its application as a "violent felony" under an enhanced sentencing law. Begay had violated New Mexico's DUI law multiple times. Following his last offense, the judge concluded that at least three of those prior DUI crimes constituted "violent crimes" under the Armed Career Criminal Act. This made Begay eligible for an additional 15 year stretch behind bars. The court ruled that was a misapplication of the federal statute. "In our view, DUI differs from ... burglary, arson, extortion and crimes involving the use of explosives in at least one pertinent, and important, respect. The listed crimes all typically involve purposeful, 'violent,' and 'aggressive' conduct."

#28) United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company (decided April 15, 2008)

Chief Justice John Roberts penned the unanimous opinion in favor of the government. The U.S. Tax Code provides for a statute of limitations on seeking refunds of taxes unlawfully assessed. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining sought to recover money that went beyond this timeframe under a different and more forgiving legal framework. The court ruled the mining company could not do that.

#27) Meadwestvaco v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue (decided April 15, 2008)

Justice Samuel Alito authored the unanimous opinion in favor of Meadwestvaco. This case focused on the taxation of capital gains by an out-of-state corporation. Specifically, Meadwestvaco (based in Ohio) sold off its interests in Lexis Nexis and argued that any tax burden was due only to Ohio. Conversely, Illinois argued the sale generated business income subject to taxation as Meadwestvaco, though based in Ohio, did business in Illinois. That view was shared by the lower courts. But the Supreme Court court disagreed saying the lower courts "misapprehended the principles" the High Court uses to determine the circumstances in which a state may tax an out-of-state firm's gains.

#26) New Jersey v. Delaware (decided Down March 31, 2008)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored the 6-2 opinion in favor of Delaware. The two states have squabbled since the 1800s over access to the Delaware River which marks the border between the states. This case focused on British Petroleum's efforts to build a liquified natural gas facility on the New Jersey shoreline. But a Delaware environmental assessment concluded the plant would adversely (and illegally under Delaware law) impact its shore. New Jersey argued it had exclusive regulatory control over any entity that is built on its shore and extends into the river. The court ruled that is not the case, rather the two states have "overlapping authority" over the river.

#25) Medellin v. Texas (decided March 25, 2008)

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 opinion in favor of Texas. This case put President Bush in the odd position of defending a man in his home state who sits on death row. Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national, took part in the gang rape and murder of two teenagers. But the International Court of Justice ruled that because Medellin was not notified of his right to legal help from the Mexican government he (and 50 others in similar circumstances) should be given a new trial. President Bush, in defending the ICJ ruling, wrote a memo to the Justice Department that Texas had to comply with the international court's ruling.

But the court disagreed. "We conclude that neither {the ICJ's ruling} nor the president's memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions. We therefore affirm the decision below." Roberts added that "the president has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing treaty is not among them. The responsibility for transforming an international obligation arising from a non-self-executing treaty into domestic law falls to Congress."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices David Souter and Ginsburg. "In a word, for present purposes, the absence or presence of language in a treaty about a provision's self-execution proves nothing at all. At best the court is hunting the snark. At worst it erects legalistic hurdles that can threaten the application of provisions in many existing commercial and other treaties and make it more difficult to negotiate new ones."

The ruling drew quick praise from Texas lawmakers. The president's press secretary Dana Perino responded, "[The Supreme Court] recognized that there is an international obligation to comply with treaties, but that the president of the United States does not have the legal authority to compel a state to take that action. While we urged a different result, we respect the court's decision and we'll abide by it."

#24) Hall Street Associates v. Mattel (decided March 25, 2008)

Justice Souter authored the 6-3 opinion in favor of Mattel. This case comes after a lengthy run through the legal system and may not yet be over. The dispute arises over the agreement toy maker Mattel made with Oregon property owner Hall Street Associates. That agreement called for the appeal of any arbitration ruling arising over their dispute about the costs of environmental clean-up at a property mattel leased from Hall Street. The arbitration ruling was in favor of Mattel and Hall Street made its appeal. The High Court's ruling in this case says only in certain cases can there be a court appeal — at least under the terms of the Federal Arbitration Act. The court left open the question of more exhaustive judicial review of arbitration cases under different laws.

#23) Snyder v. Louisiana (decided March 19, 2008)

Justice Samuel Alito penned the 7-2 opinion in favor of Allen Snyder. This was dubbed the "O.J. Case" because that's how the prosecutor described it to the media and strongly suggested it to the jury just months after the "trial of the century" had ended. But the court's opinion made no mention of this aspect of the case, rather it focused on the racial strikes of potential black jurors. It describes the three-part test necessary for the court to review if strikes were done properly. Justice Alito applies this test when going through the voir dire transcript and concludes that "the trial court committed clear error" when it allowed the prosecutor to strike one of the potential jurors. As such, the court reversed Snyder's sentence and conviction.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent and was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. They argued that in this case and those similar to it, significant deference must be afforded to the trial court judge. And in so doing, these justices determined the trial judge "did not clearly err" in dismissing the potential juror from further participation. "The [majority's] conclusion, however, reveals that it is only paying lipservice to the pivotal role of the trial court."

#22) Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (decided March 18, 2008)

Justice Thomas authored the 7-2 opinion in favor of the Washington State Grange. Several years ago the voters in Washington passed a referendum calling for a blanket primary. It calls for all primary candidates to indicate their party preference. Then the top two voter-getters — regardless of party preference designation — move on to the general election. The state's major parties filed suit to block the process saying it violates their rights to association. They argued the system could confuse voters or force candidates on them that they didn't want to be associated with.

But Justice Thomas disagreed. While much of the court's opinion discusses the legal framework and difficulty of facial challenges, Justice Thomas did address the merits of the case. "There is simply no basis to presume that a well-informed electorate will interpret a candidate's party-preference designation to mean that the candidate is the party's chosen nominee or representative or that the party associates with or approves the candidate."

In a dissent joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Scalia offered this blunt assessment. "It is no mystery what is going on here. There is no state interest behind this law except the Washington Legislature's dislike for bright-colors partisanship, and its desire to blunt the ability of political parties with noncentrist views to endorse and advocate their own candidates."

#21) Warner-Lambert v. Kimberly Kent et al. (decided March 3, 2008)

The court issued a "Per Curiam" or "of the court" ruling in this case which split the justices 4-4. Per Curiam rulings give no explanation for the decision. The rules of the court provide that when there is an equal split the ruling of the lower court (in favor of Kimberly Kent, et. al.) is upheld but the decision has no precedential value. Chief Justice Roberts recused himself from the case.

Warner-Lambert and its parent company Pfizer appealed to the High Court the 2nd Circuit ruling that said it could be sued in Michigan state court for personal injury by people who used the diabetes drug called Rezulin. For various reasons the drug is no longer sold. The drug company says the FDA is the controlling agency to handle disputes like this but the Second Circuit disagreed and gave the green light for the lawsuit in the Michigan courts.

#20) Boulware v. United States (decided March 3, 2008)

Justice David Souter authored the unanimous opinion in favor of Michael Boulware. This tax evasion case out of Hawaii presented the trial court with some salacious details but the Supreme Court with a rather mundane question related to tax law. The trial court and the 9th Circuit denied Boulware's attempt to argue that his company was not profitable and that the funds he took from it were legal "returns of capital." Souter wrote for the court that "a defendant in a criminal tax case does not need to show a contemporaneous intent to treat diversions as returns of capital before relying on those sections to demonstrate no taxes are owed."

#19) Federal Express v. Holowecki et al. (decided Feb. 27, 2008)

7-2. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Paul Holowecki. This age discrimination case centered on the ability of 14 current and former FedEx employees to file suit against their employer. Federal law says that such a suit can only be filed 60 days after a "charge" is filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The purpose of this delay mechanism is to give the company formal notice of the complaint and to provide both sides time to mediate the dispute.

In this case, the paperwork submitted by the workers was not considered by the EEOC to be a "charge" and therefore FedEx wasn't notified of the discrimination claim until the lawsuit. The Court's opinion concluded that the paperwork submitted was sufficient to be a charge and despite the lack of notification to FedEx, the 60 day period expired opening the window for litigation. Justice Kennedy's opinion noted the frustration the rest of Court expressed during oral arguments when he wrote that because the EEOC "failed to treat respondent's filing as a charge in the first instance, both sides lost the benefits of the ADEA's informal dispute resolution process."

#18) Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn (decided Feb. 26, 2008)

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the unanimous opinion in favor of Sprint/United Management Co. This discrimination case focused on a narrow legal matter rather than any facts of the particular age discrimination case brought by Ellen Mendelsohn against telecommunications giant Sprint. The High Court ruled that the 10th Circuit erred in its reversal of the trial court's exclusion of so called "me too" testimony. Adding the appeals court should have remanded the case back to the trial court for greater clarity on its ruling. "A remand directing the district court to clarify its order is generally permissible and would have been the better approach in this case," wrote Justice Thomas.

#17) Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (decided Feb. 20, 2008)

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the unanimous opinion in favor of the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association. In 2003, Maine passed legislation it hoped would curb illicit tobacco use. The law was aimed at non-traditional retailers particularly those who sell tobacco via the internet. It mandated certain authenticity protocols for these non-traditional retailers and their suppliers. Those suppliers objected saying the law was onerous and too much of a burden on them and was contrary to federal law. The High Court agreed. Justice Breyer wrote that Maine's public health justification didn't validate the law and that the Maine law "produces the very effect that the federal law sought to avoid... the effect of the regulation is that carriers will have to offer tobacco delivery service that differ significantly from those that, in the absence of the regulation, the market might dictate."

#16) Preston v. Ferrer (decided Feb. 20, 2008)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored the 8-1 opinion in favor of Arnold Preston. Alex Ferrer is the host of the television program "Judge Alex." Preston is Ferrer's former agent and was seeking payment for setting up the meeting that eventually led Ferrer's television show. Ferrer refused to pay, contending Preston's work on his behalf did not in fact lead to the "Judge Alex" program. Ferrer further sought to have the matter settled by the California Labor Commissioner. The original contract stated that any disputes were to be presented before an arbitrator. The court ruled that such an agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act must remain in place. Justice Ginsburg wrote, "When parties agree to arbitrate all questions arising under a contract, state laws lodging primary jurisdiction in another forum, whether judicial or administrative are superseded by the FAA." Disclaimer: The respondent in this case, Alex Ferrer, is an employee of 20th Century Fox whose parent company is the same as FOX News Channel.

#15) Riegel v. Medtronic (decided Feb. 20, 2008)

Justice Antonin Scalia authored the 8-1 opinion in favor of Medtronic. The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for approving medical devices before they are put into use. In 1996, the Medtronic-made catheter that was used in Charles Riegel's angioplasty ruptured. A suit was filed in New York claiming that the catheter was improperly manufactured and violated that state's common law. Lower courts ruled against the Riegel family concluding the states could not impose rules different from the guidelines proscribed by the FDA. And the high court reached the same conclusion.

#14) Danforth v. Minnesota (decided Feb. 20, 2008)

Justice John Paul Stevens authored the 7-2 opinion in favor of Stephen Danforth. This case centered on the extent to which states may provide relief broader than federal standards in certain cases. In 1996, Danforth was convicted of sexually abusing a six-year old boy. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against Danforth in his attempt for a new trial because some of the evidence presented against him at trial was unconstitutional. The legal matter at issue was Danforth's argument that states (Minnesota in this case) could grant retroactive review based on a broader standard than what was proscribed by the Supreme Court in its 1989 Teague decision.

In this opinion, the court ruled in favor of Danforth writing that "the remedy a state court chooses to provide its citizens for violations of the Federal Constitution is primarily a question of state law. Federal law simply 'sets certain minimal requirements that states must meet but may exceed in providing appropriate relief.'" But Chief Justice Roberts disagreed writing "retroactivity of new federal rules is a question of federal law binding on states. The court's contrary holding is based on a misunderstanding of our precedent and a misunderstanding of the nature of retroactivity generally."

#13) LaRue v. DeWolff (decided Feb. 20, 2008)

Justice John Paul Stevens authored the unanimous opinion in favor of James LaRue. Chief Justice Roberts authored a concurring opinion joined by Justice Kennedy. And Justice Thomas authored another concurring opinion joined by Justice Scalia. LaRue sued his former employer to recover $150,000 in "lost" 401k benefits. It was alleged that the company's retirement plan administrator failed to process transactions LaRue was seeking. The court, overturning the lower court decision, ruled in favor of LaRue writing the retirement law "does authorize recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a participant's individual account."

#12) Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (decided Jan. 22, 2008)

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 5-4 opinion in favor of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Abdus-Shahid Ali is an inmate in the federal prison system. In 2003, he was transferred from a facility in Georgia to one in Kentucky. During the course of that transfer he says some of his belongings — especially his religious possessions including a Koran and prayer rug — were missing. He estimated the total value of these items to be $177 and sued for reimbursement.

The Bureau of Prisons contended and the Court agreed that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) doesn't allow for such a lawsuit. The case focused on language in the FTCA related to the exemption of "any other law enforcement officer" from litigation. Justice Thomas wrote, "[i]n the end, we are unpersuaded by petitioner's attempt to create ambiguity where the statute's text and structure suggest none." Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer.

#11) Knight v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (decided Jan. 16, 2008)

The unanimous decision in favor of the Internal Revenue Commissioner was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The trustee managing the Pepperidge Farm fortune filed a tax return deducting fees paid for investment advice. An IRS audit determined these fees were not fully deductible and ordered the trust to pay the appropriate tax. The court agreed, ruling the trust did not qualify for a full exemption and therefore could only deduct a fraction of the costs incurred for its investment advice.

#10) New York State Board of Elections v. Torres (decided Jan. 16, 2008)

The unanimous decision in favor of New York state was written by Justice Antonin Scalia. This case challenged the peculiar way New York elects its trial court judges. Several times, Margarita Lopez Torres sought a seat on the bench through party nominating conventions and was denied a spot on the ballot. She and others sued the state Board of Elections claiming party control of the nominating process deprived their rights to ballot access. But the court disagreed.

"Selection by convention has been a traditional means of choosing party nominees. While a state may determine it is not desirable and replace it, it is not unconstitutional," wrote Justice Scalia.

#9) Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, et al. (decided Jan. 15, 2008)

The 5-3 decision in favor of Scientific-Atlanta was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part. This case is similar to the multi-billion dollar lawsuit filed by swindled Enron investors. The court's decision will make it more difficult for those Enron investors to succeed.

The Stoneridge case centers around the 2001 stock price collapse of cable giant Charter Communications. Stoneridge Investment sued a couple of companies that did business with Charter saying they were engaged in a scheme that helped Charter cook its books, which eventually led to the accounting disaster that crippled the firm.

The court ruled against those investors with Justice Kennedy writing, "They sought to impose liability on entities who, acting both as customers and suppliers, agreed to arrangements that allowed the investors' company to mislead its auditor and issue a misleading financial statement affecting the stock price. We conclude the implied right of action does not reach the customer/supplier companies because the investors did not rely upon their statements or representations."

#8) John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States (decided Jan. 8, 2008)

The 7-2 decision penned by Justice Breyer ruled in favor of the government. This was an obscure challenge to the court that questioned the timeliness of a lawsuit filed in the Federal Claims Court. The Michigan gravel company was fed up with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its access restrictions to contaminated parts of its property. The firm sued but its case was dismissed for being untimely. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

#7) Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Board of Trade of the City of New York, et al.

By agreement of both parties this case was dismissed.

#6) Watson v. United States (decided Dec. 10, 2007)

The unanimous decision favored Michael Watson and was written by Justice David Souter. This case centered on the meaning of the word "use" during a drug deal that involves a firearm. Watson was convicted of "using" the gun in an effort to obtain the weapon for drugs. At no point in the transaction with the undercover cop did he intend to fire the gun. Nonetheless, Watson was sentenced for an additional five years behind bars (in addition to his drug sentence) because of his "use" of the gun. Justice Souter bluntly wrote, "The government's position that Watson 'used' the pistol ... by receiving it for narcotics lacks authority in either precedent or regular English."

#5) Gall v. United States (decided Dec. 10, 2007)

A 7-2 decision in favor of Brian Gall was written by Justice Stevens. This identical decision to Kimbrough touched upon some of the same arguments presented in that case. Again, the issue of a federal judge imposing a sentence below proscribed guidelines was before the court, and again, the court ruled that trial judges do have such power with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.

"[W]hile the extent of the difference between a particular sentence and the recommended guidelines range is surely relevant, courts of appeals must review all sentences — whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the guidelines range — under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. We also hold that the sentence imposed by the experience district judge in this case was reasonable," Justice Stevens wrote.

#4) Kimbrough v. United States (decided Dec. 10, 2007)

Kimbrough was the victor in this 7-2 ruling. Justice Ginsburg authored the majority opinion. Opponents of the federal law mandating sentences of crack cocaine related offenses 100 times more severe than similar crimes involving powder cocaine cheered this ruling.

The court's ruling did not strike down the controversial law but rather empowers trial court judges to impose sentences below what the statutes proscribe. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, with the former writing that the court's ruling had "no basis in law."

The day after this ruling, the United States Sentencing Commission, which has broad authority to set sentencing guidelines, made retroactive an earlier decision that effectively eliminates the 100:1 imbalance. The commission's decision also means that some 2,500 convicted drug felons will be eligible for early release in 2008.

#3) CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Georgia State Board of Equalization (decided Dec. 4, 2007)

The court's unanimous decision favored CSX Transportation. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion. The rail giant appealed to the court over Georgia's tax policy as it applied to its properties in the Peach State, particularly its rail lines.

Issues involving tax assessments over railroads — often in the millions of dollars — have been contentious for decades. In this case, Georgia adjusted its tax formula in a way CSX argued was contrary to what the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 mandated. Roberts, writing for the court agreed.

"The 4-R Act prohibits four separate forms of discriminatory state taxation of railroads. ... The total lack of textual support for Georgia's position is not surprising. The dichotomy the state presses would eviscerate the statute by forcing courts to defer to the valuation estimate of the state, when discriminatory taxation by states was the very evil the act aimed to ban."

#2) Logan v. United States (decided Dec. 4, 2007)

The unanimous ruling favored the government. Justice Ginsburg authored the court's decision, which denied sentencing relief to James Logan who was convicted of illegally possessing a gun. The Wisconsin man had appealed part of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the federal government's "three strikes" law. One of Logan's prior bad acts is only considered a misdemeanor in Wisconsin courts, and because of that, he claimed he shouldn't be subject to the federal government's enhanced sentencing law for repeat felony offenders. It mandates a minimum 15-year sentence. Logan's firearms offense by itself would have produced only a 10-year sentence. But the court disagreed with Logan's argument that his prior misdemeanor crime should not count against him at the federal level.

The technical language at issue is the federal law's determination of prior felonies based on a person's "civil rights restored" basis.

As Justice Ginsberg wrote in the court's opinion: "[The federal law] sets out post-conviction events — expungement, set aside, pardon or restoration of civil rights — that extend to an offender a measure of forgiveness, relieving him from some or all of the consequences of his conviction. Congress might have broadened [the law's] exemption provision to cover convictions attended by no loss of civil rights. The national lawmakers, however, did not do so. ... We are not equipped to say what statutory alteration, if any, Congress would have made had its attention trained on offenders who retained civil rights; nor can we recast [the law] in Congress' stead."

#1) Board of Education of the City of New York v. Tom F. (decided Oct. 10, 2007)

The court issued a per curiam or "of the court" ruling in this case which split the justices 4-4. Per curiam rulings give no explanation for the decision. The rules of the court provide that when there is an equal split the ruling of the lower court — in this case, in favor of Tom F. — is upheld but the decision has no precedental value. Justice Kennedy recused himself from the case.

The New York Board of Education did not want to reimburse the father of a learning disabled child who never enrolled the youngster in the school system. The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) allows for reimbursements to parents who place their kids in private schools when the public schools cannot sufficiently provide for an appropriate education. The school board contended that because the child was never actually enrolled in the public school system, his family shouldn't be entitled to the reimbursement.