The U.S. Supreme Court today found that judges may not use newer, more stringent sentencing guidelines on old cases. The 5-4 ruling came in the case of Marvin Peugh, who was convicted of five counts of bank fraud, sentenced to 70 months in prison and ordered to pay nearly $2 million dollars. Peugh had argued that his sentence was unfair because 2009 guidelines were used instead of the more lenient 1999 guidelines that were in effect at the time of his offenses. The high court agreed and sent the case back to the appeals court. SCOTUSBlog has the story.

A recent 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court extends a ruling it made last year that allowed prisoners to challenge their state convictions in federal court based on the claim that their attorneys were ineffective. The court considered the case Trevina v. Thaler challenging Arizona state law saying that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel had to be raised in a separate post-conviction motion and not in a direct appeal of the original conviction. According to attorney Lee Davis writing in the Chattanoogan, the problem with this approach is that there is no right to an attorney in the post-conviction motion phase, though there is in the direct appeal phase.

Vanderbilt University law professor Chris Slobogin is questioning this week's U.S. Supreme Court decision that  affirms the practice of taking DNA samples of people charged with serious crimes as a customary part of booking suspects. While some local law enforcement agencies view it as a vote of confidence, Slobogin says the  5-4 decision opens the door to routine DNA sampling of any person arrested for a crime, including people who turn out to be innocent. Although Tennessee’s law only applies to suspects connected to serious crimes, Slobogin questions if the high court’s decision could prompt state lawmakers to broaden the law, possibly infringing on innocent people’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Tennessean has the story.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the power of government at all levels to take DNA samples from persons legally arrested for a “serious” new crime, SCOTUSblog reports. What a suspect may have done in the past, the court majority ruled, is a part of the profile that police may constitutionally begin to assemble at the time of arrest for a separate offense. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a five-four majority, said the practice is akin to taking a suspect’s fingerprints or mug shot. But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said the ruling cast aside a long-standing rule that police may not take scientific samples involuntarily from an individual, if the only purpose is to solve a prior crime.

Between now until the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on hot button issues including affirmative action in college admissions, same-sex marriage and gene patenting. View the video at WCYB.

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear a challenge to the authority of the Copyright Royalty Board, which sets royalty rates for musical works. The high court today refused to hear an appeal that the panel – made up of three copyright judges appointed by the Librarian of Congress – should be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The company bringing the suit also wanted to overturn the panel’s decision that noncommercial educational webcasters pay an annual fee of $500 per channel for a license authorizing the webcasting of unlimited amounts of music. The Memphis Daily News has this Associated Press story.

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday agreed to hear a First Amendment case involving town board meetings in Greece, N.Y., that include prayer. It will be the first time in three decades that the court has taken a case involving the constitutionality of prayer at the opening of a government meeting, SCOTUSblog reports. It was one of five cases accepted for the October term. The others deal with the right of airline passengers to sue over frequent flyer issues, whistleblower protections for contract employees, constitutionality of home searches when only one resident gives consent, and the burden of proof in patent cases when infringement claims also are made.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that police officers need a search warrant to obtain blood tests for a DUI arrest will have an impact on DUI enforcement in Tennessee, WATE reports. During times such as “No Refusal Weekends,” in which suspected drunk drivers cannot refuse sobriety tests, blood alcohol tests are a major tool for Tennessee Highway Patrol. "So that adds an extra step for them. They'll have to articulate fully the circumstances which made it necessary for them to get a blood draw," said Knox County Assistant District Attorney Sarah Keith. “It can be lengthy to get these search warrants."

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday declined to review a decision approving cost-of-living increases (COLAs) for six federal judges who sued for back pay. The move lets stand an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that Congress pay the COLA for the six years when it had been denied. While the case does not automatically raise salaries for all judges, another group is trying to get a class-action lawsuit approved so more than 1,000 current and former federal judges can sue for lost pay. WRCB TV3 has an Associated Press story on the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that police must try to obtain a search warrant from a judge before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects, WRCB reports. The justices sided with a Missouri man who was subjected to a blood test without a warrant. Although he was found to have nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood and failed several field sobriety tests, justices agreed with the Missouri high court that said the blood test violated the Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.