Today the Supreme Court decided one criminal case and one law-enforcement-related civil case. In Dixon v. United States, a 7-2 opinion by Justice Stevens, the Court decided that the burden of proving the affirmative defense of duress may be placed on the defendant. In Woodford v. Ngo, a 6-3 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that the administrative exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to actually use the administrative remedy within the time allowed for it, not just let the time lapse and then file in federal court.
Still undecided are . . .
Kansas v. Marsh: constitutionality of Kansas death penalty law
Beard v. Banks: First Amendment right to publications for most difficult inmates
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon: consular notification and suppression of post-arrest statement
Bustillo v. Johnson: consular notification and assistance at trial
Washington v. Recuenco: Blakely and harmless error
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: military tribunals and pretrial federal court review
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez: automatic reversal for denial of counsel of choice
Clark v. Arizona: insanity defense
The next expected decision day is Monday, June 26.
Update: The pending case list is corrected. Thanks, Doug.
The remaining civil cases are:
Randall v. Sorrell: campaign finance
GI Forum v. Perry: reapportionment
Arlington Central School Dist. v. Murphy: Individuals with Diabilities Act
The end of the term is heavily criminal, although the political nature of two of the civil cases will probably mean they get more press coverage than any of the criminal and related cases except Hamdan.