Supreme Court U S

Joe Sullivan was 13 years old when he and two older boys broke into a home, where they robbed and raped an elderly woman. After a one-day trial in 1989, Sullivan was sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole. Terrance Graham was 16 when he and two others robbed a restaurant. When he was arrested again a year later for a home break-in, a Florida judge said he was incorrigible. In 2005, Graham received a life term with no parole. The two young convicts represent an American phenomenon, one the Supreme Court is set to reconsider in the fall term that opens Oct. 5. At issue is whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to imprison a minor until he or she dies when the crime does not involve murder.

It did not take long after moving 60 miles from the ethnically diverse neighborhoods of the Bronx to the campus of Princeton University for Sonia Sotomayor to make it clear she was not happy with the way the overwhelmingly white, male school was run. In her sophomore year, Sotomayor walked into the office of university President William G. Bowen to demand more Latino faculty and students.

After the most partisan Supreme Court battle in more than a decade, Samuel A. Alito Jr. was sworn in Tuesday as the 110th justice on the nation's highest court, where he is expected to usher in a new era of judicial conservatism. He took the oath minutes after the Senate voted 58 to 42 to confirm him to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican nominee who became the court's pivotal swing vote on such issues as abortion and gay rights.

President Theodore Roosevelt campaigned as a trust-busting reformer, but was embarrassed by revelations that his 1904 campaign had received secret contributions from New York insurance companies. At his urging, Congress passed a law to keep corporate money out of political races. Now, that century-old ban stands in danger of being overturned by the Supreme Court's conservative majority, on the basis of an equally venerable principle: free speech in politics. The justices signaled the prospect of a profound shift in election law by scheduling an unusual special argument for Sept.

The Supreme Court cleared the way for a new era of tobacco litigation Monday, ruling that cigarette makers could be sued for allegedly deceiving smokers about the dangers of highly popular "light" cigarettes. The decision allows class-action lawsuits to proceed in several states and opens the door to suits in other states. Ten years ago, the tobacco industry agreed to a $206-billion settlement with 46 states to end lawsuits over the healthcare costs of smoking.

The video images were disturbing -- a tiny white kitten singed with the flame from a lighter; a gray cat struggling beneath a woman's spiked heel; pit bulls tearing into a trapped animal. The Supreme Court has often said that freedom of speech includes ugly and foul language. But this fall the justices will be looking at video clips like these to decide whether selling films of dogfights or animal torture is protected from prosecution under the 1st Amendment. The dispute, expected to be heard in early October, has driven a wedge between traditional free-speech advocates and defenders of the humane treatment of animals.

Will the next addition to the Mattel Inc. doll family be "Thick-Skinned Barbie?" The Supreme Court on Monday declined to protect Mattel's iconic toy from the insulting lyrics of the 1997 song "Barbie Girl." The tune, by Danish group Aqua, derides the anatomically impossible doll -- who has a Fabulous Fountain Pool, a Grand Hotel and a Ferrari 355 Spyder -- as a "blond bimbo" whose "life in plastic" is "fantastic."

Can a man who admitted killing his girlfriend, but who claims he did so in self-defense, prevent a jury from hearing her prior reports to the police that she feared for her life? The Supreme Court is due to decide that question in a Los Angeles case that has alarmed advocates for victims of domestic violence. They fear that the justices, determined to protect the fair-trial rights of defendants, are in danger of creating an incentive to kill. The case of Giles vs.

Even as President Obama flies to the University of Notre Dame this weekend to give a commencement speech that promises to be marked by bitter abortion protests, he will be grappling with one of the most critical decisions of his presidency. With a new poll out Friday showing that for the first time a majority of Americans call themselves "pro-life," the decision of whom to nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court has grown even more complex.

The Supreme Court strengthened enforcement Tuesday of the landmark Title IX law that bars sex discrimination in schools and colleges, ruling that teachers and coaches may challenge schools for giving girls second-class treatment without fear of being punished. In a 5-4 ruling, the high court said the law not only protected girls and women who might be victims of discrimination, but also those who sought to enforce its guarantee of equal treatment.

Congress is set to allow the Pentagon to keep new pictures of foreign detainees abused by their U.S. captors from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court. Federal courts have rejected the government's arguments against the release of 21 color photographs showing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq being abused by Americans. The Obama administration believes that giving the Defense secretary the imminent grant of authority over the release of such pictures would short-circuit a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act. The White House is asking the justices to put off consideration of the case until after a vote on the measure in the House and Senate, as early as this week.

Could the government outlaw a hypothetical "Human Sacrifice Channel" on cable TV? That question became the focus of a Supreme Court argument Tuesday on the reach of the 1st Amendment and whether Congress can outlaw videos showing dogs fighting or other small animals being tortured and killed. Last year, a federal appeals court, citing freedom of speech, struck down a law against selling videos with scenes of animal cruelty. The law applied only to illegal acts of torturing or killing animals, not legal hunting or fishing.

By mid-morning on the first day of the Supreme Court's term, it was clear new Justice Sonia Sotomayor would fit right in -- and in particular with her talkative fellow New Yorkers. Sotomayor peppered the lawyers with questions in a pair of cases, joining with Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg during the oral arguments. Together, they left the other justices sitting in silence for much of the time. In the first hour alone, Sotomayor asked 36 questions, and Scalia followed with 30. Ginsburg is particularly interested in legal procedures, and she and Sotomayor dominated the questioning for much of the second hour.

Joe Sullivan was 13 years old when he and two older boys broke into a home, where they robbed and raped an elderly woman. After a one-day trial in 1989, Sullivan was sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole. Terrance Graham was 16 when he and two others robbed a restaurant. When he was arrested again a year later for a home break-in, a Florida judge said he was incorrigible. In 2005, Graham received a life term with no parole. The two young convicts represent an American phenomenon, one the Supreme Court is set to reconsider in the fall term that opens Oct. 5. At issue is whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to imprison a minor until he or she dies when the crime does not involve murder.

The video images were disturbing -- a tiny white kitten singed with the flame from a lighter; a gray cat struggling beneath a woman's spiked heel; pit bulls tearing into a trapped animal. The Supreme Court has often said that freedom of speech includes ugly and foul language. But this fall the justices will be looking at video clips like these to decide whether selling films of dogfights or animal torture is protected from prosecution under the 1st Amendment. The dispute, expected to be heard in early October, has driven a wedge between traditional free-speech advocates and defenders of the humane treatment of animals.

President Theodore Roosevelt campaigned as a trust-busting reformer, but was embarrassed by revelations that his 1904 campaign had received secret contributions from New York insurance companies. At his urging, Congress passed a law to keep corporate money out of political races. Now, that century-old ban stands in danger of being overturned by the Supreme Court's conservative majority, on the basis of an equally venerable principle: free speech in politics. The justices signaled the prospect of a profound shift in election law by scheduling an unusual special argument for Sept.

Floor debate over Sonia Sotomayor's history-making nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court began late Tuesday -- and though her confirmation seems assured, it will not happen painlessly. Senate Republicans are determined to use the occasion to mount a broad attack on what they view as a liberal legal agenda favored by Sotomayor and the Obama administration.

Republicans' unflinching opposition Tuesday to Judge Sonia Sotomayor drew a partisan line in the sand, signaling that any future Obama nominees to the Supreme Court are unlikely to win significant GOP support even if they have solid legal credentials and moderate records.

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.

Two months ago, Sonia Sotomayor's Latino heritage was viewed as an overwhelming asset. And though history will be made if she becomes the Supreme Court's newest justice, there wasn't much talk about that during three days of grueling testimony last week. For some, her confirmation hearings left a bitter taste.