The Supreme Court ruled today that people who committed crack cocaine crimes before more lenient penalties took effect -- but received their prison sentence afterward -- should benefit from the new rules. The decision resolved the cases of two men who were arrested for selling crack cocaine under the old mandatory minimum sentencing scheme, but were not sentenced until after the Fair Sentencing Act went into effect in August 2010. That law reduced the difference between sentences for crack and powder cocaine. In the 5-4 decision, the court said the new rules should apply because it could "find no convincing reason why Congress would have wanted…unfair consequences." The dissenting justices argued that an 1871 law dictates that new, more lenient sentencing not apply to pre-enactment offenders. WRCB TV3 has this AP story

Broadcasters anticipating a major constitutional ruling on the government's authority to regulate the airwaves instead won "the smallest of Supreme Court victories" today, reports the Associated Press. The justices unanimously threw out fines imposed on Fox and ABC saying they could not have known in advance that isolated incidents of profanity and nudity would give rise to penalties of nearly $1.24 million. The case against the broadcasters was based on a new FCC policy, but the justices agreed that the agency had not adequately explained the new policy before beginning to enforce it. WSMV has the story

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner (editor-in-chief of Black's Law Dictionary) this week released "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.” The book explores what textualism means, and spells out 70 canons, or guideposts, to explain the concept. Scalia said the goal of the book was to "help attorneys better understand how to present a client’s case...by better understanding how judges interpret cases.” It is the second major book on legal thinking and writing by the pair. In 2008 they authored "Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges." Learn more about the new book in the ABA Journal

U.S. Supreme Court justices' summer travel schedules are a clue that blockbuster health care and immigration cases will be decided by the end of June. Several of the justices have teaching gigs that begin in July, including Chief Justice John Roberts who will be in the Mediterranean island nation of Malta; Antonin Scalia who will teach in Innsbruck, Austria; Samuel Alito is teaching in Florence; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will take part in programs in Venice and Vienna. Justices can accept roughly $25,000 in additional income for teaching and speaking, beyond their salary of $213,900 a year. The chief justice earns about $10,000 a year more. TriCities.com has the AP story

The Supreme Court agreed today to consider the retroactivity of its 2010 decision finding that lawyers have a Sixth Amendment obligation to warn their clients when guilty pleas can result in deportation. At issue is whether the ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky applies to defendants whose convictions became final before the date of the opinion. According to the cert petition, “federal and state courts are openly and intractably divided” over whether the Padilla holding applies retroactively. Read more in the ABA Journal

The early analyses of this morning's Supreme Court hearing on parts of Arizona's controversial immigration law are in, and the consensus is that the majority of justices will likely uphold the state's effort to reduce the number of people within its borders who may be there illegally, reports National Public Radio. For an in-depth analysis of the hearing read the account at SCOTUSblog.com or listen to this story by NPR reporter Nina Totenberg.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday on Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, which gives police broad authority to detain individuals suspected of being in the country illegally. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds an Arizona immigration law after hearings this week, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and other legislators say they will file legislation to undo it. Schumer said the Arizona law also makes it a federal crime for any individual to fail at any time to possess documents verifying their immigration status. The Blog of Legal Times has more

How should judges approach the Constitution in making decisions? Syndicated columnist George Will looks at a new book from appellate court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, which criticizes the “living Constitution,” ”originalism” and “constitutional pragmatism” jurisprudential theories. Each, he says, abets judicial hubris, leading to judicial “activism.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that federal judges may consider previously unsubmitted evidence when inventors challenge rejection of their patent application by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The case arose when an inventor challenged a rejection with evidence that he had not provided previously to the PTO. The agency had sought dismissal of the case. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said there were no additional evidentiary restrictions to be placed on patent application challenges. Read more from Business Week

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that organizations cannot be sued for torture under the Torture Victim Protection Act. The decision came in the case of Azzam Mohamad Rahim, who allegedly died at the hands of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. His family argued that the law, which authorizes suits against "individuals" who commit acts of torture, also applied to organizations. The court disagreed, saying there was no indication Congress intended such an interpretation. NPR has the story