High Court

As the Supreme Court begins its new term Monday, its sixth with John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, the reality is that this is the most conservative court since the mid-1930s. Since Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, conservatives have sought to change constitutional law, and they have succeeded in virtually every area. During the first years of the Roberts court, it has consistently ruled in favor of corporate power, such as in holding that corporations have the 1st Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts in independent political campaigns.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca from being sued for racial gang violence in the jails he supervises. The justices without comment turned down an appeal from the county's lawyers, who argued that Baca could not be held personally liable for the stabbing of an inmate since he had no personal involvement in the incident. Instead, the court let stand a decision of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that Baca could be sued for "deliberate indifference" to the inmate's rights since he was aware of jailhouse violence and had failed to take action to stop it. Dion Starr said he was stabbed 23 times by Latino gang members at the Men's Central Jail in 2006.

California Supreme Court Justice Edward A. Panelli said Thursday he is strongly considering retiring but will not announce a decision until early September. In an interview with The Times in his spacious court office here, the affable Deukmejian appointee described much of his job as an unrelenting grind that leaves little time for family or recreation. Though he is leaning toward retirement, Panelli said he wants to mull it over more before deciding whether to leave his prestigious post.

After a three-day marathon of oral arguments, the nine members of the Supreme Court met in conference Friday to cast preliminary votes on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "Obamacare. " Some commentators regard the outcome as a foregone conclusion based on the skeptical questions posed to the government's lawyers by the two Republican-appointed justices considered most likely to uphold the law - Chief JusticeJohn G. Roberts Jr.and JusticeAnthony M. Kennedy - and on the supposedly lackluster advocacy of Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. At the risk of being accused of wishful thinking, we believe reports of the death of the law may be greatly exaggerated.

The California Supreme Court on Thursday salvaged thousands of tough criminal sentences that had been put in question by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the state's sentencing law was unconstitutional. Although the state high court decided that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of inmates may have their sentences reconsidered, it also said trial courts were free to uphold them under a new, stopgap sentencing law passed in March to resolve the constitutional flaws.

Until last month, the strongest evidence in drug and drunk driving cases in courtrooms across the nation often was a piece of paper. A crime lab or Breathalyzer report would confirm that the defendant indeed had illegal drugs or a high level of alcohol in his or her system. But a Supreme Court decision has sent a jolt through that procedure. Now the prosecution must make a lab technician available to testify in person if the defendant demands it.

After a three-day marathon of oral arguments, the nine members of the Supreme Court met in conference Friday to cast preliminary votes on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "Obamacare. " Some commentators regard the outcome as a foregone conclusion based on the skeptical questions posed to the government's lawyers by the two Republican-appointed justices considered most likely to uphold the law - Chief JusticeJohn G. Roberts Jr.and JusticeAnthony M. Kennedy - and on the supposedly lackluster advocacy of Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. At the risk of being accused of wishful thinking, we believe reports of the death of the law may be greatly exaggerated.

The Supreme Court justices struggled Wednesday to resolve a profound church-state conflict concerning whether the nation's civil rights laws protect teachers at religious schools. It is an issue the high court has not ruled on before, and it left the justices divided and sounding uncertain over whether the Constitution's protection for religious liberty shields church schools from some, most or all anti-discrimination claims involving their employees. The Obama administration drew sharp rebukes from religious conservatives and liberals when it entered the case on the side of a teacher who was fired from an evangelical Lutheran school in Michigan.

The Supreme Court justices opened their new term Monday by hearing a major healthcare case that tests whether judges can stop California and other cash-strapped states from cutting their payments to doctors and hospitals who serve low-income patients. The case heard Monday will probably affect how much money is available to pay for medical care for more than 50 million Americans, about half of them children, who depend on Medicaid. Since its creation in 1965, Medicaid has been a cooperative effort and jointly funded by the federal government and the states.

The U.S. Supreme Court is tackling the question of whether an expansion of Medicaid under the healthcare law violates states' rights. More specifically, does it violate Republican-led states' rights? That's the crux of the case, seeing as 26 Republican-led states are the main ones challenging the law . But when it comes to Medicaid, you have to wonder what their beef really is. The United States has about 50 million people without health insurance -- a shameful and costly statistic.

As the Supreme Court justices asked pointed questions about President Obama's landmark healthcare law Tuesday, and the issue was being hotly debated outside the courtroom,  letter writers to The Times  emailed their own pointed observations of the day's events. Times staff writers David Savage and Noam Levey reported   Tuesday afternoon from Washington: “It is often difficult to tell from oral arguments exactly how the justices will vote, but from their questions, the four conservatives sounded as though they had made up their minds that the mandate is unconstitutional....

The U.S. Supreme Court is tackling the question of whether an expansion of Medicaid under the healthcare law violates states' rights. More specifically, does it violate Republican-led states' rights? That's the crux of the case, seeing as 26 Republican-led states are the main ones challenging the law . But when it comes to Medicaid, you have to wonder what their beef really is. The United States has about 50 million people without health insurance -- a shameful and costly statistic.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court weighed into one of the thorniest issues in the Middle East conflict - who has sovereignty over Jerusalem - ruling that courts have the power to decide whether Congress can order that passports for U.S. citizens born there list "Israel" as their birthplace. The justices, ruling 8 to 1 on Monday, passed the decision back to a lower court. So Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, now 9, will have to wait to find out what his passport will look like. The U.S. has long taken the position that sovereignty over Jerusalem, which Israelis and Palestinians both claim as their capital, must be resolved in negotiations, so the government does not recognize Israeli sovereignty there.

The right to a fair trial by a jury of one's peers is one of the most sacred guarantees of the Bill of Rights, but the dirty secret is that it isn't exercised very often. More than 97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions result from guilty pleas. Recognizing that reality, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 this week that defendants have a constitutional right to be informed by their lawyers about the possibility of a plea bargain and the implications of turning one down.

Why theU.S. Supreme Courtcontinues to hold its oral arguments away from television cameras remains a mystery and a national shame. On Monday, the court will begin hearing six hours of arguments over three days in a lawsuit brought by more than half of the states in the nation to challenge the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, one of the most important pieces of economic legislation passed by Congress since the New...

A years-long legal fight over cuts in California's multibillion-dollar healthcare program for the poor took another twist Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court kicked the case back to a lower court. The high court's 5-4 decision allows medical providers to continue suing to stop the cuts, which would lower reimbursement rates for doctors who participate in the state's Medi-Cal program. But it did not affirm the lower court's decision to block the reductions, leaving the state another opportunity to argue for the right to implement them to help balance its depleted budget.

The U.S. Supreme Court in a surprise move ordered a temporary delay Monday in the bankruptcy sale of Chrysler to Italian automaker Fiat, saying it needed more time to decide on complaints that the government-engineered deal was unfair to some bondholders. The one-line order from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg raised the possibility that the court could halt the sale and force the Chrysler deal to be renegotiated. Such a move could also complicate the much larger General Motors bankruptcy.

It's the Supreme Court, stupid! ROBERT LEES Los Angeles

The Supreme Court served notice Friday that it would not let states or state judges casually defy its much-disputed ruling in the Citizens United case that gave corporations a right to spend freely on election campaigns. The justices put on hold enforcement of a Montana election law. But the case could force the high court to reconsider the corporate spending issue if its liberal justices insist on doing so. On Dec. 30, Montana's high court said it was refusing to follow Citizens United as a binding precedent.

It remains anyone's guess how the Supreme Court will vote this year on whether Congress can require people to buy insurance as part of President Obama's healthcare reform law. At this point, the smart money is on a 4-4 split between the court's conservative and progressive factions, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy the likely swing vote. And he hasn't tipped his hand on how he feels about the issue. With this in mind, it's helpful to remember why this is even being discussed.