Case 1: A Florida death row inmate is struck by lightning, diminishing his mental capacity. The justices must determine whether executing him violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The justices refuse to grant certiorari.

Case 1: A pregnant teenager gains permission from a court to obtain an abortion. Her parents oppose the abortion and appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. The justices rule in favor of the girl and the lower court.

Case 1: A masked witness testifies in a case against a drug dealer. The prosecution refuses to name the witness since three previous named witnesses in the case were killed although there is no evidence the defendant was involved in the killing. The defense appeals to the Supreme Court, and the justices rule that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him" was violated, so the witness must be named, or she will not be able to testify.

Case: A man with two wives convicted of bigamy appeals a lower court verdict, claiming anti-bigamy laws violate his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The justices rule 4-4 (with Novelli abstaining after not being present to hear the arguments) against the man when one of the justices believes the man's religious beliefs do not actually support bigamy. (See Reynolds v. United States for a similar issue).

Case: The widow of a murdered abortion doctor wins a $6 million case against an extremist anti-abortion web site that advocated the killing of her husband and several other abortion doctors. The web site operator argues he is protected by his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The justices overturn the verdict after finding that the site was not responsible for the murder and that the web site was indeed protected under the First Amendment.

Case: The wife and daughter of a man in a coma for nine years battle over whether he should be kept on life support. The wife wants to end life support, arguing her husband would not want to be kept alive in such a state. The daughter argues that she has seen glimpses of life in her father, so life support should be maintained. The justices rule 5–4 that the man's wife has the right to make medical decisions for him. The case foreshadowed the real-life Terri Schiavo controversy that would gain national attention in 2005.

Case: A case is brought challenging the constitutionality of Megan's Law. The sex offenders argue that the law violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The advocates of the law argue that it protects public safety. The justices rule in favor of upholding the law.

Case: A teenager digitally placed the faces of classmates on to the faces of adult pornographic film actors and is convicted under a federal law that prohibits simulated child pornography. The justices find a loophole that allows them to overturn the conviction without overturning the law, with the intention of sending a signal to Congress that the law was too broad and needed be narrowed.

Case: The sheriff in a small town searching for a serial rapist begins collecting DNA samples from all the male patients of the town hospital. One person whose DNA is taken but does not match the rapist's DNA sues in a state court, which orders the sheriff to stop the DNA collection. After the sheriff ignores the state court's order, he finds a match. The accused rapist appeals to the Supreme Court. The justices rule 5–4 that the sheriff's collection of DNA was a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures" by government authorities. The rapist himself is convicted when his wife voluntarily turns over a sample of her husband's DNA.

Case: The Supreme Court must decide if a small town that bans guns within its borders is constitutional. The justices rule 5–4 that the ban violates the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms.

Case: The CIA attempts to stop the publication of a book that may reveal national security secrets. The author and the publisher argue that they are protected by the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press.

Personal Issue for Ellie Pearson: Ellie believes publication of the book will reveal how her father died.

Personal Issue for Justice Szwark: As the justices sit down to hear oral argument in the case, Szwark storms off when she sees her daughter is the lawyer representing the CIA. She has her daughter brought to her chambers and speaks to her about the CIA's manipulation to force Justice Szwark to recuse herself since her daughter's representation of a litigant in the case constitutes a conflict of interest. The other eight justices later vote unanimously that Szwark has no conflict of interest.