What's at Stake as the Supreme Court Returns?

October 17 - 23, 2007 by Maya Harris, The Post Newspaper

As the ultimate interpreter of what should stand as the law of the land when key legal controversies arise, the United States Supreme Court is truly a powerful institution.  That’s why there’s so much speculation about whether the Court, which just began its 2007–08 term, will shift to the “right,” tilt to the “left” or take a “middle of the road” position in deciding a variety of cases that will have immediate effects on the daily lives of ordinary people.

Here are just some of the cases the Court will hear this term:

Crack vs. Cocaine Sentencing (Kimbrough v. United States)

Under the federal mandatory minimum sentencing scheme, it takes only five grams of crack to get a five-year prison sentence, but it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to get the same five-year term.  A federal judge, who believed the sentencing guidelines are unreasonable, sentenced Kimbrough to a 15–year term for possession with intent to distribute 56 grams of crack, instead of the 19–22 years prescribed by federal sentencing guidelines.  The prosecutor has challenged the shorter sentence.

What’s at stake?  Justice, equality and fairness.  There’s no legitimate justification for treating crack 100 times more harshly than powder cocaine.  Moreover, the law has a severely racially discriminatory impact, disproportionately incarcerating African Americans for lengthy sentences.  In papers filed with the Court, the ACLU argues that federal sentencing judges should have discretion to sentence below the existing guidelines for crack offenses.

Voter ID Challenge (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board)

The ACLU, NAACP and others are challenging Indiana’s voter ID law, the most restrictive law in the nation.  It requires voters to show a federal- or state-issued photo ID, such as a passport or driver's license, to cast their ballot, even though no evidence of voter fraud in Indiana can justify it.

What’s at stake?  Voting is a fundamental right that should not be subject to unnecessary burdens imposed by the state.  Millions of Americans of voting age do not have official federal or state identification.  The Indiana voter ID law—and similar laws being adopted or considered in other states—will disenfranchise many voters who do not have or cannot afford to obtain the approved IDs, and will disproportionately impact the voting rights of the elderly, poor and people of color.

Habeas Corpus (Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States)

Guantánamo detainees being held without charges or trial are seeking the right to challenge the legality of their imprisonment in U.S. federal courts—a right other prisoners have under the Constitution.  The Bush Administration wants to deprive federal courts of that authority. 

What’s at stake?  A core Constitutional right to due process.  For centuries, the writ of habeas corpus has allowed individuals detained by the U.S. government to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.  It’s our Constitution’s protection against unlawful imprisonment.  The ACLU brief in this case argues that American officials acting outside the United States are bound to obey the Constitution.

Death Penalty (Baze v. Rees)

The case raises the issue of whether the three-drug cocktail Kentucky uses for lethal injection executions amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment” because the combination of drugs cause unnecessary risk of pain and extreme suffering.  If the first drug fails to make the inmate unconscious, he may experience excruciating pain from the third drug that causes cardiac arrest, but the effects will be masked because he won’t be able to scream or call for relief due to the second drug which would have already paralyzed him.

What’s at stake?  The Court’s decision could impact the death penalty nationwide: 37 of the 38 states with the death penalty, including California, use the same three-drug cocktail at issue in this case.  California is also one of nine states that has halted executions due to litigation over its lethal injection procedure, including a lawsuit filed by the ACLU-NC.