The number of Americans with a favorable view of the U.S. Supreme Court has hit a 25-year low, according to a new poll released today.

Just 52 percent, barely more than half of those polled by the Pew Research Center, have a favorable opinion of the nation's high court. That's the lowest figure in the history of the poll, which began in 1987, and a steep drop from a high of 80 percent in 1994.

Twenty-nine percent of those polled said they had a unfavorable view of SCOTUS - just 1 percentage point short of the highest negative rating ever in 2005. Support for the court was below 60 percent among Republicans, Democrats and independents alike.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday concerning what is considered to be the nation's toughest immigration law, in Arizona. The question before the high court will have a considerable scope - do a state's statutes usurp federal authority in setting immigration policy?

Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 encourages undocumented immigrants to pack up and leave through something the law calls "attrition through enforcement." SB 1070 expanded the authority of state police officers to ask about the immigration status of anyone they stop, and to hold those suspected of being illegal immigrants. The Obama administration challenged the law and four of the most contentious provisions of the law have already been suspended by federal courts.

The case could lead the Supreme Court to consider long-established boundaries between states and the federal government on immigration issues, which up until now, have been considered a nearly exclusive federal preserve.

To add extra drama to Wednesday's proceedings, the same two lawyers who recently argued the health care case are set to face off once more in the Arizona dispute: Washington appellate lawyer Paul Clement and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

The Supreme Court handed down a ruling today that allows strip-searches for any offense.

The high court, by a 5-4 vote, allows officials to strip-search people arrested for any offense, even if the officials had no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with conservative judges, stating that the courts are in no position to second-guess judgments of correctional officers considering the possibility of smuggled weapons, drugs and information about gangs.

"Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed," wrote Kennedy.

But Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, writing that strip-searches were "a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy" and should only be used in special circumstances.

In 1979, the Supreme Court upheld a policy of conducting body-cavity searches of prisoners who had contact with visitors, on the premise that the prisoners could have obtained something they should not have.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor might deliberate on more important cases, but none more challenging than the historic case of Baby Bear (as in the smallest of the three bears) vs. Goldilocks.

Sotomayor even stepped away from the high bench of the U.S. Supreme Court to visit Sesame Street to consider the legal challenge.

According to the court docket, Baby Bear told authorities that Goldilocks broke into his house, sat in his chair and broke it. After hearing all of the arguments, Sotomayor ruled that Goldilocks should fix the chair but also reminded Baby Bear that "accidents do happen."

An Idaho couple will be spending much of this week in the nation's capital, preparing with their attorney for an appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chantell and Mike Sackett of Priest Lake are taking on no less than the federal government and the Environmental Protection Agency in a landmark case concerning environmental property. The feds claimed the Sacketts had illegally filled in a half-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The EPA said the property was protected wetlands and began fining the Sacketts $30,000 per day.

Next Monday, Jan. 9, the Supreme Court will consider the Sackets' case that the EPA has gone too far. When the high court rules, it should have wide-reaching implications since the EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders each year.

It's a pretty fair bet that one of the touchstone moments of 2012 will be the looming debate over health care that will play out at the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps no other event will have greater social consequence while shaping the race for the White House.

Partisans have already asked that two of the justices on the high court recuse themselves from the case. Republicans want Justice Elena Kagan to step aside because of her work as solicitor general for the Obama White House. Democrats want Justice Clarence Thomas off the case because his wife has publicly criticized what her colleagues call "Obamacare."

In a year-end report, Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed both efforts, saying he had "complete confidence" that there are no personal interests that conflict with his colleagues' ability to hear the case.

"I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted," wrote Roberts. "They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous apointment and confirmation process. I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise in the course of their judicial duties."

Arguments over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act are scheduled for March. Oral arguments are expected to be limited to 5-1/2 hours.

An Idaho couple, who claim that construction on some of their property led to a federal land grab, will have their day in court. In fact, it will be the Supreme Court.

The high court has agreed to hear the case of Mike and Chantell Sackett vs. the Environmental Protection Agency when the new court session begins this October. The couple arged that the EPA seized their land after ordering them to stop building a house on a half-acre lot near Priest Lake in Idaho's panhandle. The EPA said the area was a federally designated wetland. The Sacketts were accused of violating the Clean Water Act, and ordered to return the property to its original condition or face steep fines. The Sacketts wanted an immediate appeal before a federal judge, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the Sacketts already had a sufficient avenue of appeal.

The Sacketts appealed and have now secured the opportunity to argue their case before the highest court in the land.

With a handful of exceptions (some family court cases and child custody arguments) cameras are allowed in almost every courtroom in the nation, except one: the United States Supreme Court. The court doesn't allow live television or even audio broadcasting of arguments from inside its chambers. The court provides argument transcripts and some audio on select cases. And Chief Justice John Roberts wants to keep it that way.

In rare comments before a judicial conference held this weekend in West Virginia, Roberts said he's concerned about the effect that having television cameras in the Supreme Court would have on lawyers and justices. He said jurists "unfortunately fall into grandstanding with a couple hundred people in the courtroom" and was worried if that number was dramatically magnified.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a former University of Idaho student who was held in jail for 16 days by the federal government as a so-called "material witness" in a terror investigation.

Lavoni Kidd was a football player for the U of I when he converted to Islam, changing his name to Abdullah al-Kidd. He began volunteering at an Islamic charity led by a person being investigated for possible terrorism ties. In 2003, al-Kidd was pulled from a plane headed for Saudi Arabia and held in prisons in Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho. He was released after surrendering his passport and agreeing to restricted travel conditions.

In a lawsuit, al-Kidd held Bush administration officials personally liable for what he called wrongful arrest and detention. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, his lawyers said the government had "warped the law" to allow open-ended arrests and confinement.

But in a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court said al-Kidd could not hold Bush officials, and in particular former Attorney General John Ashcroft, liable.

In the opinion, Justice Antonin Saclia wrote, "The constitutional question in this case falls far short of that threshold."

al-Kidd currently teaches English to college students in Saudi Arabia. He still has claims pending against the FBI.