The Supreme Court of the United States announced a decision in one case this morning:

Marshall v. Rodgers, No. 12-382: Respondent Otis Lee Rodgers challenged his state court conviction by seeking a writ of habeas corpus from federal District Court, claiming that the state courts violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by declining to appoint an attorney to assist in filing a motion for a new trial, notwithstanding respondent’s three prior waivers of the right to counseled representation. The District Court denied the petition, but the Ninth Circuit granted habeas relief. Today, in a per curiam opinion, the Court reversed, holding that respondent’s claim is not supported by “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), as required for habeas relief, while expressing no views on the merits of the underlying Sixth Amendment principle.

The Court's decision is available here.

The Supreme Court also granted review in one case:

Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. USDC WD TX, No. 12-574: In a case involving federal courts’ enforcement of contractual forum-selection clauses, the questions presented to the Court are: (1) Did the Court’s decision in Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988), change the standard for enforcement of clauses that designate an alternative federal forum, limiting review of such clauses to a discretionary, balancing-of-conveniences analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)? (2) If so, how should district courts allocate the burdens of proof among parties seeking to enforce or to avoid a forum-selection clause?