Welcome to the Supreme Court's 2006 Term! While the term officially began last week, I wasn't talking about it. So let's get to business. This is the court's first full term with its new, reconstituted self: John Roberts replaced Chief Justice Rehnquist about a month before the beginning of the term last year, and Samuel Alito joined the court in December. Now we will see the power of the fully armed and operational judicial station!

Last Tuesday, the court heard oral arguments for its first cases of the term (while the term began on Monday, they heard no arguments that day). The cases of Lopez v. Gonzales and Toledo-Flores v. United States were consolidated into one argument. The question presented in each case is essentially the same: the petitioner was convicted of drug possession, a misdemeanor federal crime, but a felony in the petitioner's state. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the fact that the crime was a felony in the petitioner's state changes the federal crime from "simple possession" (a misdemeanor) to "drug trafficking" (an "aggravated felony"). The Fifth Circuit stands in opposition to the Second, Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits, which held that a state felony conviction does not create a federal felony "drug trafficking" crime. Lopez v. Gonzales puts this in the context of immigration laws, but the answer to Toledo-Flores will give us the answer to Lopez.

Next, we had Ayers v. Belmontes, which asks the court to look into the legality of California's practice of considering a defendant's background and character as "mitigating factors" for sentencing purposes. (E.g., if Johnny committed a violent crime, but the court learned that he had been abused as a child, his sentence might be brought down from life to 30 years.)

These cases are boring. But hopefully we might see some warrantless wiretapping action going on later in the term.