American Civil Liberties Union

ACLU Freedom Files ACLU Legacy Challenge - See and Hear What Others Have Done

Freedom Files - Season 2
Ideological Exclusion

ACLU NewsfeedsACLU News Feed
ACLU Blog
ACLU Podcasts

Supreme Court Ends Term By Striking Down Military Tribunals at Guantánamo Bay

The 2005 Term has been surrounded by anticipation and drama, with the appointment of John Roberts as Chief Justice and Samuel A. Alito Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.

The Court began the 2005 term with a series of important civil liberties cases on its docket involving abortion, free speech, the free exercise of religion, search and seizure, the right to die, military recruiting on university campuses, and disability rights. Other cases involving national security, the constitutionality of military commissions, and campaign finance have been added during the term.

The Roberts Court ended its first year by holding that the system of military tribunals established by the Bush Administration to try Guantánamo detainees violates the Geneva conventions and U.S. law,  yet another rebuke to the Administration's efforts to rewrite the legal rules in the guise of fighting terrorism.

Of the term as a whole, the ACLU's national legal director, Steven R. Shapiro, observed, "Thus far, Roberts and Alito have pretty much performed as expected. But in the short run, at least, their votes may be less important on a range of critical issues than Justice Kennedy, who now holds the balance of power on a closely divided Court." Read the ACLU's Wrap-Up of the 2005 term >>

See below for case profiles from the 2005 Supreme Court term.

FEATURES
> ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro, 2005 Term Wrap-Up
     (Summary of 2005 Supreme Court Term)
> Video: ACLU Leaders Discuss the 2005 Term
> ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro, 2005 Term Preview
> Associate ACLU Legal Director Ann Beeson: A Patriot Silenced
> ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project Deputy Director Jennifer Dalven: A Matter of Women's Health



SUPREME COURT CASES

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (12/21/2005)
These cases raise the question of how to determine whether evidence is "testimonial" for purposes of the Confrontation Clause, and thus inadmissible at trial unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose "testimony" is being offered by the prosecution. The ACLU brief urges the Court to adopt an objective standard under which a statement would be treated as "testimonial" if a reasonable person under the circumstances would understand that the statement could be used for criminal investigation or prosecution. DECIDED


DEATH PENALTY
Lawrence v. Florida (6/27/2006)
Reviewing whether, and under what circumstances, the one year deadline for filing a federal habeas petition can be subject to "equitable tolling." DECIDED


DISABILITY RIGHTS
Goodman v. Georgia (9/22/2005)
Reviewing whether state prisons that discriminate against prisoners with disabilities can be sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. DECIDED