On January 15, 2004, the Evergreen Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in the following ten cases. Counsel for each party in each case is shown in red letters.  Please report any errors to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

This is a dispute over the name of a song. Rosa Parks is a civil rights icon who first gained prominence during the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott in 1955. She sued LaFace Records, a record producer, and OutKast, a "rap" (or "hip-hop") music duo, as well as several other named affiliates, for using her name as the title of their song, Rosa Parks. Parks contends that Defendants' use of her name constitutes false advertising under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and intrudes on her common law right of publicity under Michigan state law. Parks sued Defendants in the Wayne County Circuit Court of Michigan alleging, inter alia, that Defendants' unauthorized use of her name infringes on her right to publicity, defames her character, and interferes with an ongoing business relationship.

The Federal District Court denied Parks' motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment for Defendants. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part.
 

The Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (the parties refer to it as "CAKKKK"), which describes itself as "a Christian civil rights, white separatist group," sued to enjoin the enforcement of provisions that the mayor of Gary, Indiana added by executive order to the City’s "parades and processions" ordinance. One provision requires anyone seeking a parade permit to apply 45 days in advance of the parade. The other challenged provision states that if "it is reasonably determined" that the applicant for the permit "has a prior history of engaging in conduct which is unlawfully violent and has unlawfully caused or threatened to cause harm to persons or property," the City’s police chief is to determine what police protection will be "reasonably necessary . . . to protect other persons and property from such harm from such Applicant." Having made this determination the chief is to "us[e] his best professional judgment" to determine "the actual cost to the City of Gary for those police officers that have been determined to be reasonably necessary to protect persons and property from harm by the Applicant"—and the applicant must pay that cost in the form of a fee before the permit can be granted. This is the only fee that Gary imposes on groups that conduct parades or hold open-air assemblies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Federal District Court's denial of the injunction.
 

This is a civil action brought in the District Court for the District of New Jersey by a consortium of media groups seeking access to "special interest" deportation hearings involving persons whom the Attorney General has determined might have connections to or knowledge of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This category was created by a directive issued by Michael Creppy, the Chief United States Immigration Judge, outlining additional security measures to be applied in this class of cases, including closing hearings to the public and the press. The District Court found for the media plaintiffs and issued an order enjoining the Attorney General from denying access. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed.
 

On the lawn outside the City’s municipal, the City of Ogden (City) has maintained since 1966, a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The City originally acquired the Ten Commandments Monument as a gift from a community organization calling itself the Fraternal Order of Eagles. Summum is a religion formed in 1975 and chartered in Utah. Arguing that the City’s display of the Ten Commandments Monument violates the church’s First Amendment right to be free from an establishment of religion, followers of the Summum religion requested that the City remove the Monument. The City declined to do so. Followers of the Summum religion proposed, instead, then, that the City install an identical monument in approximately the same location as the Ten Commandments Monument, this new monument to be funded entirely by private contributions (like the Ten Commandments Monument) but to bear, instead of the Ten Commandments, the Seven Principles of the Summum religion.(the "Seven Principles Monument"). The City of Ogden likewise rejected this offer. Summum sued, alleging that the City violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by displaying a Ten Commandments Monument and violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by displaying that Monument while refusing to display a Seven Principles Monument that the church wanted displayed. . Both parties moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Ogden.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
 

St. Mary’s Today is a weekly newspaper owned by Kenneth Rossignol and primarily serving St. Mary’s County in southern Maryland. It has reported extensively and often critically on local government and public officials, including County Sheriff Richard Voorhaar and his deputies. This criticism also extended to a personal friend of Voorhaar named Richard Fritz, a candidate for St. Mary’s County State’s Attorney in the November 1998 elections who enjoyed broad support in the Sheriff’s Office.

Several deputies in the Sheriff’s Office anticipated that the election day issue of St. Mary’s Today would be critical of them and their favored candidates, particularly Voorhaar and Fritz. Over the course of a series of meetings and conversations, both on the job at the Sheriff’s Office and in the evening at private homes, some of the deputies formulated a plan to buy out the stock of St. Mary’s Today at vending locations throughout the county. They planned to stage a "bonfire party" when the seizure was completed. The sheriff approved the plan and personally contributed $500 to defray purchasing costs. Late on the night before the election, six sheriff’s deputies set out in two cars. The officers were off duty, wearing plainclothes, and driving their personal cars. They drove throughout the county, buying newspapers from both newsboxes and local stores. One witness testified that after the mass purchase he could not find "any papers anywhere in the county."

Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging violations of their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the grounds that defendants had not acted under color of state law. The United States Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. 
 

Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen, was captured by allied forces in Afghanistan, a zone of active military operations. He is being held indefinitely without charges, without access to a court of law, and without access to an attorney. In June 2002, Hamdi's father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, naming as petitioners both Hamdi and himself as next friend. Although acknowledging that Hamdi was seized in Afghanistan during a time of active military hostilities, the petition alleges that "as an American citizen, . . . Hamdi enjoys the full protections of the Constitution," and that the government's current detention of him in this country violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This case involves a number of legal questions and has been the subject of extensive litigation thus far. On one issue, the Federal District Court directed the government to respond to Hamdi's petition and also ordered that Hamdi be given unmonitored access to a lawyer. 

On the government's appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the U.S. has established the legality of the military's detention of Hamdi as an enemy combatant subject to military rather than civilian jurisdiction and that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed.
 

This is a taxpayer suit to enjoin Wisconsin correctional authorities from funding Faith Works, a halfway house that, like Alcoholics Anonymous, incorporates Christianity into its treatment program.

If a convicted criminal is out on parole and living in Milwaukee and he violates the terms of the parole, his parole officer may offer him, as an alternative to being sent back to prison, enrollment in one of several halfway houses with which the state has contracts. The officer can recommend a specific halfway house-the one he thinks best for the particular offender-but the offender is free to choose one of the others. One of the authorized halfway houses, Faith Works, which focuses on employment needs, drug and alcohol addiction, and parental responsibility, has a religious theme: it encourages the offender to establish a personal relationship with God through the mediation of Jesus Christ. 

Parole officers have recommended Faith Works to some parolees, but have been careful to explain that it is a non-binding recommendation and that Faith Works is a Christian institution and its program of rehabilitation has a significant Christian element. Parole officers who recommend Faith Works are required to offer the offender a secular halfway house as an alternative. And although Faith Works will enroll an offender even if he is not a Christian, a parole officer will not recommend Faith Works to an offender who has no Christian identity and religious interest and will not advise anyone to convert to Christianity in order to get the most out of Faith Works.

If an offender enrolls in Faith Works, the state reimburses a part of the cost in accordance with the terms of the contract, just as it does in the case of offenders who enroll in secular halfway houses. The plaintiffs sued the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, alleging that this funding constitutes an Establishment of religion, in violation of the Constitution. After a bench trial, the District Court judge rejected that argument. The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed. 

(Note to co-counsel: There is another opinion to the contrary in the same case but with different facts.)
 

As one of two salutatorians, Nicholas Lassonde, who is a devout Christian, drafted a speech that quoted extensively from the Bible. In his declaration, he explained that he intended for the speech to "express[ ] [his] desire for [his] fellow graduates to develop a personal relationship with God through faith in Christ in order to better their lives." Principal Coupe, who maintained control over all aspects of the graduation ceremony, reviewed the draft and, in conjunction with the school district’s counsel, determined that allowing a student to deliver overtly proselytizing comments at a public high school’s graduation ceremony would violate the Establishment Clauses of both the United States and the California Constitutions. Accordingly, Coupe and the district’s counsel advised Lassonde that references to God as they related to the Plaintiff’s own beliefs were permissible, but that proselytizing comments were not.

Lassonde filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that school officials violated his First Amendment rights by censoring his speech. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that the school officials’acts were necessary to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
 

This case arises out of a dispute regarding the constitutionality of a South Carolina statute authorizing the issuance of special motor vehicle license plates bearing the words "Choose Life." The fee for a "Choose Life" plate is $70 every two years, in addition to the regular license fee. Proceeds from the sale of the plates are deposited into a special account administered by the state Department of Social Services ("DSS"). Local private non-profit organizations that provide "crisis pregnancy" programs may apply for grants from this special fund. However, grants may not be awarded to "any agency, institution, or organization that provides, promotes, or refers for abortion."

Plaintiff Planned Parenthood owns a reproductive health organization that provides services to women in South Carolina. Planned Parenthood also provides first-trimester abortions at its clinics and refers patients for abortions at other facilities. Alleging that the authorizing statute suffers from a variety of constitutional infirmities, Planned Parenthood filed suit. The Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the statute infringes the First Amendment by discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. The Federal District Court agreed and found the statute to be unconstitutional.

District Court opinion: http://pub.bna.com/lw/cv03571.htm
 

The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Realm of Missouri, and Michael Cuffley in his capacity as its Unit Recruiter, brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief from the decision of the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission (the State) to deny its application to participate in the State's Adopt-A-Highway program. On cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted judgment for the Klan. The Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed. Note: There is more than one Cuffley/KKK ruling (with different outcomes). The other rulings are referenced early on in the opinion above. After the Court of Appeals ruling in 2000, the State adopted new state regulations, which became effective in January of 2001. The Klan applied again, and, citing the new regulations, the Commission again denied the application. The Klan again sued, and the District Court again granted judgment for the Klan (The latest case, decided September 10, 2003, by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, is Thomas Robb v. Henry Hungerbeeler.) brought this § 1983 action seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.