As some of you may have heard in the news, the U.S. Supreme Court gave some some interesting and controversial opinions last year. Given the public interest in some of these decisions, I thought I would provide a little information on a few of the cases.

District of Columbia v. Heller, the “gun ban” case: This was probably the most interesting and controversial case to be decided in this most recent term. This case actually represents the very first decision conclusively interpreting the second amendment since it was ratified in 1791. The second amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In its decision the Supreme Court held that the right to own a firearm was an individual right and is not tied to any requirement that a gun owner be a member of a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion and said, in part, that the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held for and used for self-defense in the home.” The Court struck down the handgun ownership ban that has been in place in Washington D.C. for 32 years. Interestingly, the Court made it clear that regulation and licensing of firearms was constitutionally permissible, making this subject ripe for future clarification through the courts. Immediately after this decision came down, lawsuits were filed in San Francisco and Chicago challenging similar laws banning handgun ownership.

Kennedy v. Louisiana, a case regarding the death penalty for rape of a child: As the father of two young children, this was a difficult case for me, personally. In this case the Supreme Court held that a law allowing the death penalty for the rape of a child violated the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. While other states have allowed the death penalty for the rape of a child, there has not been an execution in this country in 44 years for a state crime that did not involve someone’s death.

The Kennedy decision held that the death penalty was a disproportional punishment for the rape of a child. The decision appears to ban the death penalty for any state criminal law that does not involve a death. It should be noted, however, that the law allows the death penalty for certain federal crimes such as treason and espionage.

Boumediene v. Bush, the Guantanamo detainee case: This case is the latest of several Supreme Court decisions against the Bush administration’s effort to deny the Guantanamo detainees access to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their detention. The Court had previously held that these detainees must have a means to legally challenge their detention. In this case, the Court held, in part, that “the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” This particular decision has generated substantial controversy and will likely not be the final time the Court addresses this issue. The White House has consistently held the position that the detainees are illegal combatants and therefore have no legal rights whatsoever. This case and the others addressing this issue represent one of the clearest conflicts in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of our government.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the “Voter ID case: In this case, the Court upheld Indiana’s requirement to show a valid photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Opponents had argued that such a requirement would make it more difficult for poor, elderly and minority voters to cast a ballot as such a population would be less likely to carry a drivers license or other official identification.

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the “Exxon Valdez” case: In this decision the Court reduced the $2.5 billion dollar punitive damage verdict in this famous oil spill case to $500 million. The verdict had already once been reduced from the original $5 billion jury verdict from the original trial.

I hope you find these summaries of some of the Supreme Court’s most recent cases interesting and helpful. As you can see, the Court faced some important question with long reaching implications. As individuals, we may or may not agree with some of these holdings, but it is good to understand them as they do represent “the law of the land.”