On March 31, 2010, in a resounding victory for the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled as CAC had urged, and held that the lawyer for an alien charged with a crime has a constitutional obligation to tell the client that a guilty plea carries a risk that he will be deported.
You are here
In Pavan, et al. v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the Arkansas Supreme Court properly concluded that Arkansas may, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, prevent a mother’s same-sex spouse from being listed on her child’s birth certificate, even though the general rule under Arkansas law is that a mother’s opposite-sex spouse must be listed on the child’s birth certificate, even when he is not the child’s biological parent.
In Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, the Supreme Court considered whether a state no-impeachment rule can constitutionally bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that generic drug manufacturers may not be sued for allegedly inadequate drug labels under state failure-to-warn laws because it would be “impossible” for the generic drug manufacturers to comply with both state law and federal law. The ruling stands in sharp contrast to the Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine, in which the Court held that no such federal preemption exists against the manufacturers of brand-name prescription drugs.