The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether states are immune as creditors to money claims against them by debtors in bankruptcy — an issue that the Court had previously agreed to settle, but did not.

The new case is Central Virginia Community College, et al., v. Katz (04-885). The appeal by four state-run colleges in Virginia was supported by all of the other states. It raises anew the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue the Court had initially confronted last Term in Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood (02-1606). That case involved a bankruptcy court’s “discharge” of an unpaid student loan debt; the Court found that such a discharge did not implicate a state’s immunity.

In one of two decisions Monday on the merits, the Court ruled unanimously that individuals in bankruptcy have a right to keep out of the estate — and thus safe from distribution to creditors — an IRA account from which withdrawals can be made at any time. (Rousey v. Jacoway, 03-1407). Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the decision.

In the second ruling, the Court divided 5-4 in settling a timing question under federal habeas law. When a prisoner attacks a federal sentence on the ground that a state conviction used to enhance that sentence has been vacated, the one-year filing deadline for habeas begins running when the petitioner receives notice of the order vacating the prior sentence, the Court ruled in Johnson v. United States (03-9685). The Court was unanimous on that point. But, by a 5-4 vote, the Court went on to add the qualification that the inmate must have diligently pursued a challenge to the prior state conviction in order to benefit from the timing period specified in the decision. Once a federal verdict has been reached and sentence imposed, the majority specified, the individual must promptly begin a challenge to the conviction that led to the enhanced federal sentence. Justice David H. Souter wrote the majority opinion; it was announced in his absence by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Ordinarily, the Chief Justice announces a decision written by an absent Justice, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist has been having some difficulty with his speaking voice associated with his treatment for thyroid cancer.

Among the cases the Court on Monday refused to review were: an antitrust challenge to the National Football League’s eligibility rule on younger athletes, in the Maurice Clarett case (Clarett v. NFL, 04-910), a new attempt to persuade the Court to settle the lingering issue of whether minority voters must have a majority of an election district’s population in order to bring a vote-dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (Hall v. Virginia, 04-870), and an attempt to test the constitutionality of police use of a drug-sniffing dog to check out the exterior of a private home (Smith v. Texas, 04-874).