Supreme Court Docket



Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled

March 2003

[Download March 3-5, 2003 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Download March 24-31, 2003 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2001 Docket]

Monday, March 3


Charles T. Sell v. United States
No. 02-5664

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioner’s argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]

  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

  • Respondent - Supplemental Brief (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

    Amicus - Petitioner
  • Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc., et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  • Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (Petition) [PDF]

  • Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (Merits) [PDF]
  • Drug Policy Alliance (Merits) [PDF]
  • The Rutherford Institute (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Neither Party
  • American Psychological Association (Merits) [PDF]


Madigan, Att'y Gen. of IL v. Telemarketing Associates
No. 01-1806

Subject:

    First Amendment, State Rights, Charity, Federalism
Question:
    Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a state from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority of all funds donated.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]


Tuesday, March 4


National Park Hospitality Assn. v. Department of the Interior, et al.
No. 02-196

Subject:

Question:
    Whether a National Park Service regulation that states that National Park Service concession agreements are not contracts within the meaning of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., is valid.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]
  • Federal Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Federal Respondents (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]


Wednesday, March 5


United States, et al. v. American Library Assn., Inc., et al.
No. 02-361

Subject:

    Children's Internet Protection Act, Libraries, Internet Access, First Amendment
Question:
    The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div. B, Tit. XVII, 114 Stat. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) (Supp. V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. § 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of a "technology protection measure" on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to "visual depictions" that are "obscene" or "child pornography," and that protects against access by minors to "visual depictions" that are "harmful to minors." 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp. V 1999); 20 U.S.C. § 9134(f)(1).

    The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, thereby exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Appellants (Jurisdictional Statement) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Appellants - Appendix (Jurisdictional Statement) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Appellees American Library Association, et al. - Response (Motion to Affirm) [PDF]
  • Appellees Multnomah County Public Library, et al. - Response (Jurisdictional Statement) [PDF]
  • Appellants - Reply (Jurisdictional Statement) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

  • Appellants (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Appellees American Library Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Appellees Multnomah County Public Library, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Appellants - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Joint Appendix - Vol. 1 (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Joint Appendix - Vol. 2 (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Joint Appendix - Vol. 3 (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

    Amicus - Appellants
  • American Center for Law and Justice, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Cities, Mayors, County Commissioners (Merits) [PDF]
  • National Law Center for Children and Families, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Public Libraries of Greenville, SC, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • State of Texas (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Appellees
  • Association of American Publishers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law (Merits) [PDF]
  • Cleveland Public Library, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Jonathan Wallace d/b/a The Ethical Spectacle (Merits) [TEXT]
  • Online Policy Group, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

    Amicus - Neither Party
  • National School Boards Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]


Susan Jinks v. Richland County SC
No. 02-258

Subject:

    Supplemental Jurisdiction, State Rights, Tenth Amendment, Federalism
Question:
    Whether the tolling provision of the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), invades state sovereignty in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Tenth Amendment and its Necessary and Proper Clause.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • United States - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]


Monday, March 24


Khanh Phuong Nguyen v. United States, et al.
No. 01-10873

Tuyet Mai Thi Phan v. United States
No. 02-5034

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the ruling upholding petitioners' convictions is invalid because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel that issued it included a non-Article III judge.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:


Kevin Wiggins v. Warden Smith, et al.
No. 02-311

Subject:

    Death Penalty, Sixth Amendment, Effective Assistance of Counsel, Criminal Law
Question:
    Does defense counsel in a capital case violate the requirements of Strickland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as the Supreme Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most appeals court have concluded, or is a defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  • Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner
  • American Bar Association (Merits) [PDF]
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • National Association of Social Workers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Janet F. Reno, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondents
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
  • United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]


Tuesday, March 25


Federal Election Commission v. Christine Beaumont, et al.
No. 02-403

Subject:

Question:
    The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Respondents (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

    Amicus - Petitioner
  • Association of Trial Lawyers of America (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  • Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law (Merits) [PDF]
  • Public Citizen, Inc., Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondents
  • American Taxpayers Alliance (Merits) [PDF]
  • Pacific Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
  • RealCampaignReform.org, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]


Wednesday, March 26


William Overton, Dir., Michigan Dept. of Corrections, et al. v. Michelle Bazzetta, et al.
No. 02-94

Subject:

    Prisoner Rights, First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Civl Rights
Question:
  1. Whether prisoners have a right to non-contact visitation protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

  2. Whether the restrictions on non-contact prison visitation imposed by the Michigan Department of Corrections are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.

  3. Whether the restrictions on non-contact prison visitation imposed by the Michigan Department of Corrections constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioners
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
  • United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

    Amicus - Respondents
  • American Civil Liberties Union, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • National Council on Crime and Delinquency, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia, et al. (Merits) [PDF]


John G. Lawrence, et al. v. Texas
No. 02-102

Subject:

    Sexual Orientation, Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment, Privacy, Criminal Law
Question:
  1. Whether Petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law - which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples - violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws?

  2. Whether Petitioners' criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

  3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
  • Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]

  • Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioners
  • Stonewall Law Association, et al. (Petition) [PDF]

  • Alliance of Baptists, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • American Bar Association (Merits) [PDF]
  • American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Texas (Merits) [PDF]
  • American Psychological Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • American Public Health Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Cato Institute (Merits) [PDF]
  • Constitutional Law Professors, Bruce Ackerman, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Human Rights Campaign, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Institute for Justice (Merits) [PDF]
  • Log Cabin Republicans and Liberty Education Reform (Merits) [PDF]
  • National Lesbian and Gay Law Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • National Organization for Women (NOW) Legal Defense and Education Fund (Merits) [PDF]
  • Professors of History, George Chauncey, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Mary Robinson, Amnesty International, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Republican Unity Coalition and Alan K. Simpson (Merits) [PDF]
  • Stonewall Law Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent
  • Pro Family Law Center (Petition) [PDF]

  • American Center for Law and Justice (Merits) [PDF]
  • American Family Association, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Center for Arizona Policy and Pro-Family Network (Merits) [PDF]
  • Center for Law and Justice International (Merits) [PDF]
  • Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution (Merits) [PDF]
  • Concerned Women for America (Merits) [PDF]
  • Family Research Council, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Liberty Counsel (Merits) [PDF]
  • Public Advocate of the United States, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • States of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah (Merits) [PDF]
  • Texas Eagle Forum, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Texas Legislators, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Texas Physicians Resource Council, et al. (Merits) [PDF]


Monday, March 31


Inyo County, et al. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians, et al.
No. 02-281

Subject:

    Tribal Sovereign Immunity, Native Americans, Search and Seizure, Civil Rights Actions, Qualified Immunity
Question:
  1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enables Indian tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause.

  2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

  3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]
  • Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Joint Appendix (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondents (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioners
  • California State Sheriffs' Assn. (Petition) [PDF]
  • Los Angeles County District Attorney, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  • National Sheriffs' Assn., et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  • States of California, Alabama, et al. (Petition) [PDF]

  • California State Sheriffs' Assn. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Los Angeles County District Attorney, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • National Sheriffs' Assn., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • States of California, Alabama, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners in Part, Respondents in Part
  • United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

    Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents in Part
  • States of New Mexico and Washington (Merits) [PDF]


Marion R. Stogner v. California
No. 01-1757

Subject:

    Ex Post Facto Laws, Due Process, Criminal Law, Civil Rights
Question:
  1. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the statute of limitations requirement, which historically comprised an element of the crimes charged, so as to charge Petitioner retroactively, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause?

  2. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the statute of limitations arbitrarily retract a liberty interest the state had conferred on Petitioner?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  • Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent
  • American Psychological Assn., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]


 

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled

 

To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader

 

FindLaw Career Center

    Search for Law Jobs:

      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
Ads by FindLaw