Supreme Court round-up

The Supreme Court ruled today that a death row resident in Tennessee was denied key evidence in his trial, and ordered a Federal review of his sentence. Gary Bradford Cone was found guilty of murder in 1980. While Cone’s guilt has never been at issue, he invoked an insanity defense citing post traumatic stress disorder following his service in Viet Nam and subsequent drug addiction. The high court found that the prosecution withheld information about Cone’s mental state that may well have resulted in a life sentence – rather than the death penalty.

In another opinion rendered today, justices upheld an FCC rule that bans even one small curse word from live broadcasts – but stopped short of declaring the policy constitutional. They ordered that a Federal Court decide if the “fleeting expletive” rule violates the first amendment right to right speech.

The Supreme Court heard a case regarding banking law today – and whether a state has the power to examine racial and ethnic disparities when it comes to nationally chartered banks. It all started when then New York attorney general Elliot Spitzer wanted financial institutions to clarify why blacks and Latinos were being charged higher interest rates on their mortgages. He didn’t get the answers he wanted – instead, he was slapped with a lawsuit. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is the federal agency which supervises national banks, and the Clearing House Association, which is a group of national banks, successfully argued that state attorney generals could not enforce consumer protection laws when it comes to national banks. The State of New York appealed the federal court’s decision, and today, the high court heard arguments about whether state controllers can now have a say when it comes to national bank practices. Ann Graham is a professor of law at Texas Tech University School of Law, and explains that state-federal balance is central to the case.

The Supreme Court also heard arguments in another case today, taking up the issue of whether school districts should pay for private school tuition reimbursement for certain students with special education needs. The case, Forest Grove School District v. T. A., centers on an Oregon family that enrolled directly in a private school and sought reimbursement, but did not make an attempt to use the public school's special education services. The high court was split after hearing a similar case in 2007.