Today the Supreme Court begins the last week of its term, and it may have saved some of its most controversial decisions for last. The court will announce decisions on four remaining cases, two of which involve First Amendment disputes.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Brown v. Plata that California's overcrowded prisons violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and ordered the release of 30,000 prisoners. The 5-4 decision was sharply divided. Justice Kennedy, leading for the Majority, described “telephone-booth-sized cages without toilets,” used to house suicidal inmates. Justice Scalia, offering a vigorous dissent, called the prisoners who will eventually be released “just 46,000 happy-go-lucky felons fortunate enough to be selected.”

How do you define the right to free speech? Some would argue it means being allowed to say what you believe, even when it's not popular. Others would say it means getting a good look at what kind of prescriptions that your doctor has given you. At least, that's the argument being made in a Supreme Court case today, in which company IMS Health will make a case for allowing pharmaceutical companies to get a gander at just what kind of prescriptions you're picking up at the pharmacy for marketing purposes. 

The fate of the five remaining Chinese Muslims being held in Guantanamo Bay became murkier this week. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on behalf of the Uighurs — who have been cleared of any implications of terrorism. The appeal may have allowed them to stay here in the U.S. after they are released from Cuba. Sabin Willet represents the five remaining detainees. He says that the Uighurs have refused an invitation to resettle in Palau because they see it as an island exile. 

Immediately after the end of the Civil War, Congress drafted and pushed to ratify the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, which were intended to guarantee African-Americans full equality under the law. But despite these amendments, Jim Crow laws quickly took hold of much of the nation, stripping African-Americans of such basic rights as serving on juries and voting without the penalty of a poll tax. What went wrong?

It was ten years ago this week that the Supreme Court handed down their decision in Bush v. Gore. That decision effectively stopped the Florida recount in its tracks and placed George W. Bush in the Oval Office.

Jeffrey Toobin, staff writer for the New Yorker and author of The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court,  joins us to analyze the legal and political ramifications of that controversial Supreme Court moment.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments that could have a significant impact on California's 165,000 inmates. Early last year, a panel of three federal judges ruled that California needs to reduce its inmate population by 25 percent, because of the state's inadequate health care to its prisoners — reports show that one inmate dies every eight days from inadequate medical care.

All this week we’ve been covering the developments in Synder vs. Phelps, currently being heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. The question at the heart of the case is whether Westboro’s members have the right to protest at the funerals of fallen soldiers, gay people and young chlidren, in order to put forward their message: that America is being punished for its tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

A case coming up before the Supreme Court today will test the limits of free speech.

In Snyder v. Phelps, the anti-gay protestor Fred Phelps is being sued by the father of Matthew Snyder, a 20-year-old Marine who died in Iraq. In 2006, Phelps' group, the Westboro Baptist Church, picketed 1,000 feet from Snyder’s funeral with signs saying “You are Going to Hell” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The father wants to see the WBC punished for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Today, the Supreme Court hears what may be the most controversial case this term: Albert Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church. Snyder took members of the Westboro group to court after protesting outside the 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Corporal Mathew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The pastor of Westboro is Fred Phelps, who has for years proudly traveled around the country protesting outside of funerals as a part of his virulent crusade against homosexuality. But long before this Supreme Court case, Phelps had risen to national notoriety. His antics date back more than half a century.

The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, will soon stand before the nation’s top court to argue for their constitutional right to protest outside soldiers’ funerals. In their view, American deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God’s punishment for the country’s acceptance of homosexuality.

Albert Snyder is the plaintiff in the case; his son, U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq in 2006. The WBC went to Snyder's funeral in Maryland, holding signs that read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and other fiery epithets. Snyder fought the group and won in a lower court, arguing the church deliberately sought to inflict emotional distress, but that decision was overturned at a higher court. The Supreme Court has traditionally been very reluctant to impose limits on our freedom of speech, even offensive speech: will this case qualify?

For the first time in 35 years, the Supreme Court begins a new term without Justice John Paul Stevens. We'll finally get to see the first signs of what kind of justice his replacement, Elena Kagan, will be. Maria Hinojosa, host and managing editor of NPR's weekly radio show, Latino USA, and Charlie Herman, econoics editor for The Takeaway and WNYC Radio, look at the significance of this new term for the Supreme Court.

Israel's partial freeze on settlement buliding in the West Bank ended last night, and Marcus Mabry, associate national editor for The New York Times, and Charlie Herman, economics editor for The Takeaway and WNYC Radio, discuss how this will affect peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.  They'll also take a look at what's ahead this week for Bishop Eddie Long, who has been accused of trying to sexually seduce four teenage boys; President Obama's continued conversations with middle-class Americans; how China and Japan's relationship is rapidly deteriorating, and more.

Sometimes a word is just a word. But other times, it’s an indicator of something more troubling on the part of the speaker. Take, for example, the word “boy.” When being used to refer to a small child, most of us don’t think twice. But when the word “boy” refers to an adult black man, and the speaker is his white supervisor who’s just passed him up for a promotion, it takes on a much different meaning.

It’s for this reason that John Hithon, an employee of the Tyson chicken processing plant in Gadsden, Alabama, sued his employers for workplace discrimination.

Scott Turow, legal scholar and author of classics like "Presumed Innocent," and "One L," is well-versed in the culture of Harvard Law, and met Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan while at Harvard. He shares with us his own insights into what kind of justice the former Harvard Law School Dean might make.

"I will work hard, and I will do my best to consider every case, impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle, and in accordance with law," pledged Solicitor General Elena Kagan during her opening statement at her Supreme Court Confirmation hearing yesterday. Kagan's hearing began with few surprises, except for one—the specter of Justice Thurgood Marshall, her former boss.

The Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the scope of a law that has put people like former Enron Chief Jeffrey Skilling behind bars. The law, known as the "honest-services law," makes it illegal to "deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."  In a unanimous ruling, the justices said the law’s language was too broad. The decision sends Skilling's case back to the lower courts and calls into question other recent convictions under the same law, including the charges against Conrad M. Black, the newspaper executive convicted of defrauding his media company, Hollinger International, as well as Joseph Bruno, one of the most prominent politicians in New York.

"Material support for terrorists" sounds pretty sinister, and it was sinister enough on Monday for the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm, 6-to-3, that it is a crime under a 1996 law. But the Court hasn’t necessarily made it easy to determine where the line is between being neighborly or generous and being an accomplice in a campaign of terrorism. 

Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld a law, adopted in 1996, that bans Americans from providing support to foreign terrorist groups. Up to fifteen years in prison is the penalty for contributing cash, weapons, training, personnel, and expert advice or assistance to any foreign group that the United States deems as terrorists. 

On Friday, thousands of emails written by Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan were released by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Observers of the court from both sides of the aisle spent the weekend scrutinizing the new documents, searching for clues about her legal history.