So far in the 2008-2009 Supreme Court term, the justices have heard oral arguments for 33 cases and returned opinions in three of them. Below is a quick look at those cases and how the Court ruled. The Court will next hear oral arguments on December 8.

3) Hedgpeth v. Pulido (decided Dec. 2, 2008)

Per Curiam. The High Court remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit for further review. The Ninth Circuit had ruled that because the jury that convicted Michael Pulido of murder had been presented three different theories of the crime his conviction could not stand. But the Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit must reexamine the case to determine if the error of presenting the alternative theories was "harmless" in nature. Justice John Paul Stevens authored a dissent and was joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg. They agree with the overall legal analysis of the decision but contend the remand is not necessary in this particular case. Per Curiam means "of the Court" and is a ruling in which the Court generally speaks with one voice.

2) Bell v. Kelly (decided Nov. 17, 2008)

Per Curiam. The case was dismissed after the justices heard oral arguments. The decision appears to clear the way for Edward Bell's execution in Virginia. The exact language of the Court is "the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." The Court issued no other comment for the dismissal but the Court's order suggests the legal conflicts they thought were at issue in this capital case did not exist.

1) Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council (decided Nov. 12, 2008)

6-3. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion in favor of the U.S. Navy. The ruling overturns a lower court order that forced the Navy to conduct training exercises under certain restrictions. That order was was defended by environmental groups looking to protect marine life — particulary whales and dolphins — it said are harmed by the Navy's use of "mid-frequency active" sonar. But the Court's opinion found in favor of the military. "The Navy's need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarine plainly outweighs the interest advanced by the [environmentalists]," Roberts wrote.

The opinion however made no determination on the merits of the environmental claims. Rather, it focused on the relief granted by the lower courts forcing the Navy to halt and then later continue its exercises under limited conditions. The High Court concluded the injunctions against the Navy were excessive and that according to Roberts "there are many other remedial tools available....that do not carry such dire consequences."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fully dissented from the majority opinion and placed the onus on the Navy's failure to adequately assess the impact its sonar training would have on marine life. "If the Navy had completed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before taking action ... the public could have benefited from the environmental analysis — and the Navy's training could have proceeded without interruption. Instead, the Navy acted first, and thus thwarted the very purpose an EIS is intended to serve.... [T]he District Court conscientiously balanced the equities and did not abuse its discretion."