// BEGIN editorial data
var i = 0;
var SCOTUS_2006_Cases = new Array();
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.ID = "SCOTUS_2006_Cases";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.ID_WB = 15045426;
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.sPubDate = "6/28/2007 4:42:35 PM GMT";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.navsectionID = "3032071"
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.appFmt = 2;
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.itemsPerPage = 1;
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.appWidth = 460;
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.appHeader = "fact file|SUPREME COURT KEY CASES - 2006-2007";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.appFooter = "Source: Associated Press, NBC's Pete Willams";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.appNavStyle = 3;
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.appLayout = 3;
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.copyHeight = 200;
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.copyWidth = 340;
SCOTUS_2006_Cases.copyMargin = 9;
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Introduction","","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Art/NEWS/031212/Roadmap_to_scotus_tz152.htease.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "right", "", "", "109", "148", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i-1].body = "
The Supreme Court's 2006-2007 session included a number of important issues. Click one of the cases on the left for more details on some of this term’s key cases.";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","DECIDED","","","","", "sub", "", "", "", "right", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Diversity, race & assigning students","","","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i-1].body = "
Parents Involved, Meredith v Boards of Ed
Cases: 05-908, 05-0915
Argument date: 12-04-06
Decision date: 06-28-07
At issue: Can public schools use a student's race as a factor in deciding which schools the student can attend? To achieve a racial balance, many cities consider race in making assignments to popular schools.
Decision: By a vote of 5-4, the Court rejected public school assignment plans that take account of students' race, but left the door open for using race in limited circumstances.
";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Mental retardation and death penalty ","","","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i-1].body = "
Panetti v Quarterman
Case: 06-6407
Argument date: 04-18-07
Decision date: 06-28-07
At issue: The Supreme Court has long held that a state cannot execute someone who is so mentally ill as to be unaware of what's happening. But how mentally impaired does someone have to be? In the case in question, a Texas man believes the devil wants him executed to prevent him from preaching the gospel.
Decision: In a 5-4 ruling, the court said the convicted murderer’s argument - that he suffers from a severe documented illness that is the source of gross delusions - should have been considered and blocked the execution. [Click here to read the court's .pdf decision]";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Student speech ","","","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i-1].body = "
Morse v Frederick
Case: 06-278
Argument date: 03-19-07
Decision date: 06-25-07
At issue: As an Alaska high school student watched the Olympic torch parade go by, he unveiled a banner that said, \"Bong Hits 4 Jesus.\" He claims the school unconstitutionally took it away and suspended him, but the school says it can censor student speech that advocates illegal drug use.
Decision: Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for Court ruled schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use. [Click here to read the court's .pdf decision]";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Faith based spending","","","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i-1].body = "
Hein v Freedom from Religion
Case: 06-157
Argument date: 02-28-07
Decision date: 06-25-07
At issue: A Wisconsin group sued to challenge the Bush administration's faith-based initiative program. This case doesn't directly raise the constitutionality of the program but will instead determine whether taxpayers can file lawsuits of this kind in the first place.
Decision: In the 5-4 decision, the Court ruled ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money, saying the case “falls outside” a 1968 decision which enabled taxpayers to challenge government programs that promote religion. [Click here to read the court's .pdf decision]";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Campaign ad limits","","","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i-1].body = "
FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life
Case:06-969
Argument date:04-25-07
Decision date:06-25-07
At issue: A recent federal law blocks issue ads paid for by corporations and labor unions during blackout periods before primary and general elections. The law is under attack by groups who claim it limits free speech.
Decision: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court loosened restrictions on corporate and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, saying an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. [Click here to read the court's .pdf decision]";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","'Partial-birth' abortion","","","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i-1].body = "
Case: 05-0380
Argument date: 11-08-06
Decision date: 04-18-07
At issue: Whether the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 should be struck down because it is too vague, it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to seek an abortion or it lacks an exception to protect the health of a pregnant woman.
Decision: In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled the law is constitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said \"The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice.\" [Click here to read the court's .pdf decision]";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Damage limits for past conduct","","","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i-1].body = "
Philip Morris USA v. Williams, Mayola
Case: 05-1256
Argument date: 10-31-06
Decision date: 02-20-07
At issue: Whether to set new limits on damages awarded to punish a defendant for past conduct in an appeal by cigarette maker Philip Morris USA of a nearly $80 million award of punitive damages to an Oregon smoker's widow.
Decision: By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court found the Oregon jury could not punish the Philip Morris for injuring people and threw out the $80 million award, but said it was not deciding whether the punitive award was unconstitutionally excessive and instead ordered the state Supreme Court to reconsider under the new constitutional standard outlined in its decision. [Click here to read the court's .pdf decision]";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Forcing car and truck emission regulation","","","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i-1].body = "
Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al.
Case: 05-1120
Argument date: 11-29-06
Decision date: 04-02-07
At issue: Whether a dozen states, three cities and a number of environmental groups can force the U.S. government to regulate car and truck emissions that most experts say contribute to global warming.
Decision: In a 5-4 ruling, the court found the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, but left open the possibility the EPA might choose not to use that authority. [Click here to read the court's .pdf decision]";
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i++] = new Array("","Clean air rules & aging coal-power plants","","","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "");
SCOTUS_2006_Cases[i-1].body = "
Environmental Defense, et al. v. Duke Energy Corp.
Case: 05-0848
Argument date: 11-01-06
Decision date: 04-02-07
At issue: Whether a lower court was correct in ruling against environmentalists, who seek to enforce strict federal clean-air rules against aging coal-burning power plants.
Decision: In a unanimous decision, the court ruled the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong and upheld EPA's view that Duke Energy must have a permit before making major overhauls to its coal-fired generating units. [Click here to read the court's .pdf decision]";
// END editorial data