Supreme Court Docket



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

March 2005

[Download March 1-2, 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Download March 21-30, 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2003-2004 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.

Tuesday, March 1


Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Allapattah Services, Inc., et al.
No. 04-70

Maria Del Rosario Ortega, et al. v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc.
No. 04-79

Subject:

    Supplemental Jurisdiction, Class Actions, Absent Class Members, Amount-in-Controversy
Questions:
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., et al. - No. 04-70

Whether the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, authorizes federal courts with diversity jurisdiction over the individual claims of named plaintiffs to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of absent class members that do not satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement?

Del Rosario Ortega, et al. v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc. - No. 04-79

Whether, in a civil diversity action in which the claims of one plaintiff meet the amount-in-controversy threshold, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 authorizes the district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related claims of additional plaintiffs who do not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Exxon Mobil Corp.:
Carter G. Phillips
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondents Allapattah Servs, Inc., et al.:
Eugene E. Stearns
Sterns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
Miami, FL
For Petitioners Ortega, et al.:
Donald Belton Ayer
Jones Day
Washington, DC
For Respondent Star-Kist Foods, Inc.:
Robert A. Long, Jr.
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC

Carman L. Deck v. Missouri
No. 04-5293

Subject:

    Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments
Question:
    Are the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments violated by forcing a capital defendant to proceed through penalty phase while shackled and handcuffed to a belly chain in full view of the jury, and if so, doesn't the burden fall on the state to show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than on the defendant to show that he was prejudiced?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Deck:
Rosemary E. Percival
Kansas City, MO
For Respondent Missouri:
Evan J. Buchheim
Jefferson City, MO


Wednesday, March 2


Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas and Chairman, State Preservation Board, et al.
No. 03-1500

Subject:

    First Amendment, Establishment Clause, Religion, Ten Commandments Display
Question:
    Whether a large monument, 6 feet high and 3 feet wide, presenting the Ten Commandments, located on government property between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court, is an impermissible establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Van Orden:
Erwin Chemerinsky
Duke University School of Law
Durham, NC
For Respondents Perry, et al.:
Amy Warr
Assistant Solicitor General
Austin, TX

McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, et al.
No. 03-1693

Subject:

    First Amendment, Establishment Clause, Religion, Ten Commandments Display
Questions:
  1. Whether the Establishment Clause is violated by a privately donated display on government property that includes eleven equal size frames containing an explanation of the display along with nine historical documents and symbols that played a role in the development of American law and government where only one of the framed documents is the Ten Commandments and the remaining documents and symbols are secular.

  2. Whether a prior display by the government in a courthouse containing the Ten Commandments that was enjoined by a court permanently taints and thereby precludes any future display by the same government when the subsequent display articulates a secular purpose and where the Ten Commandments is a minority among numerous other secular historical documents and symbols.

  3. Whether the Lemon test should be overruled since the test is unworkable and has fostered excessive confusion in Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

  4. Whether a new test for Establishment Clause purposes should be set forth by this Court when the government displays or recognizes historical expressions of religion.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners McCreary County, et al.:
Mathew D. Staver
Liberty Counsel
Longwood, FL
For Respondents ACLU of KY, et al.:
David A. Freidman
Louisville, KY


Monday, March 21


Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, et al.
No. 04-278

Subject:

    Partial Restraining Orders, Procedural Due Process, Local Government, Absence of State Remedy
Questions:
  1. Whether, in conflict with decisions of the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits, the Tenth Circuit's decision permitting a procedural due process claim against a local government for its failure to protect the holder of a partial restraining order from private violence, when the State itself provides no such remedy, so circumvents as to effectively repudiate this Court's holding in DeShaney rejecting a similar substantive due process claim?

  2. If the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is read to permit, via its procedural aspects, the same substantive claims already rejected by this Court in DeShaney, what kind of process is required for police inaction with respect to a partial restraining order not to violate the constitution?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Castle Rock:
Eric Michael Ziporin
Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C.
Denver, CO
For Respondents Gonzales, et al.:
Brian J. Reichel
Broomfield, CO

Jon B. Cutter, et al. v. Reginald Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.
No. 03-9877

Subject:

Question:
    Whether Congress violated the Establishment Clause by enacting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 through § 2000cc-5, which requires state officials to lift unnecessary governmental burdens imposed on the religious exercise of institutionalized persons under their control.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Cutter, et al.:
David Goldberger
Ohio State University College of Law
Columbus, OH
For Respondents Wilkinson, et al.:
Douglas R. Cole
State Solicitor General
Columbus, OH
For Respondent United States:
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC


Tuesday, March 22


Ulysses Tory, et al. v. Johnnie L. Cochran
No. 03-1488

Subject:

    First Amendment, Free Speech, Permanent Injunction against Speech, Defamation
Question:
    Whether a permanent injunction as a remedy in a defamation action, preventing all future speech about an admitted public figure, violates the First Amendment.
Decisions:
  • Court of Appeal of California, Unpublished Opinion Filed: October 29, 2003
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: September 28, 2004

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Tory, et al.:
Erwin Chemerinsky
Duke University School of Law
Durham, NC
For Respondent Cochran:
Jonathan B. Cole
Nemecek & Cole
Sherman Oaks, CA

Michael Donald Dodd v. United States
No. 04-5286

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus, Motion Attacking Sentence, Statute of Limitations
Question:
    Does the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 6(3) begin to run (i) when either the Court or the controlling circuit court has held that the relevant right applies retroactively to cases on collateral review (as the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits hold), or instead (ii) when the Court recognizes a new right, whether or not it is made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review (as the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits hold, and the Second and Eighth Circuits have stated in dicta)?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Dodd:
Janice L. Bergmann
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Fort Lauderdale, FL
For Respondent United States:
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC


Monday, March 28


San Remo Hotel, L.P., et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
No. 04-340

Subject:

    Fifth Amendment, Due Process, Taking Without Just Compensation, Issue Preclusion
Question:
    Is a Fifth Amendment Takings claim barred by issue preclusion based on a judgment denying compensation solely under state law, which was rendered in a state court proceeding that was required to ripen the federal Takings claim?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners San Remo Hotel, et al.:
Paul F. Utrecht
Andrew M. Zacks
San Francisco, CA
For Respondents San Francisco, et al.:
Andrew W. Schwartz
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
San Francisco, CA

Jose Ernesto Medellin v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
No. 04-5928

Subject:

    Mexican Nationals, International Court of Justice, Vienna Convention, Death Penalty
Questions:
The United States and Mexico are party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and its Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Acting on the consent set forth in the Optional Protocol, Mexico initiated proceedings in the International Court of Justice seeking relief for the violation of Petitioner’s Vienna Convention rights. On March 31, 2004, the Court rendered a judgment that adjudicated Petitioner’s rights. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.) , 2004 I.C.J. 128 (Mar. 31). The Avena Judgment built on the Court’s rulings in LaGrand (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 104 (June 27), an earlier case also brought under the Optional Protocol.

On Petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability of the denial of his petition for habeas corpus, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that precedents of this Court and its own barred it from complying with the LaGrand and Avena Judgments.
  1. In a case brought by a Mexican national whose rights were adjudicated in the Avena Judgment, must a court in the United States apply as the rule of decision, notwithstanding any inconsistent United States precedent, the Avena holding that the United States courts must review and reconsider the national's conviction and sentence, without resort to procedural default doctrines?

  2. In a case brought by a foreign national of a State party to the Vienna Convention, should a court in the United States give effect to the LaGrand and Avena Judgments as a matter of international judicial comity and in the interest of uniform treaty interpretation?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties

    Amicus - Supporting Petitioner     Amicus - Supporting Respondent
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Medellin:
Donald Francis Donovan
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
New York, NY
For Respondent Dretke:
Gena Bunn
Assistant Attorney General
Austin, TX


Tuesday, March 29


Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
No. 04-480

Subject:

    Copyright Law, Internet-Based "File Sharing"
Question:
    Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to long-established principles of secondary liability in copyright law (and in acknowledged conflict with the Seventh Circuit), that the Internet-based "file sharing" services Grokster and StreamCast should be immunized from copyright liability for the millions of daily acts of copyright infringement that occur on their services and that constitute at least 90% of the total use of the services.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties     Amicus - Supporting Petitioners     Amicus - Supporting Respondents     Amicus - Supporting Neither Party
Counsel of Record

For Motion Picture Studio and
    Recording Company Petitioners:

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
Jenner & Block LLP
Washington, DC
For Songwriter and Music
    Publisher Petitioners:

Carey R. Ramos
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
    Wharton & Garrison LLP
New York, NY
For Respondents StreamCast
    Networks, Inc., et al.:

Cindy Ann Cohn
Electronic Frontier Foundation
San Francisco, CA

National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n, et al. v. Brand X Internet Services, et al.
No. 04-277

Federal Communications Commission and United States v. Brand X Internet Services, et al.
No. 04-281

Subject:

Question:
    National Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n, et al. v. Brand X Internet Servs., et al., No. 04-277
    Whether, under the framework set out in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the FCC was entitled to decide that, for purposes of regulation under the Communications Act, cable operators offering so-called "cable modem service" (high-speed Internet access over cable television systems) provide only an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service."
    FCC, et al. v. Brand X Internet Services, et al., No. 04-281
    Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Federal Communications Commission had impermissibly concluded that cable modem service is an "information service," without a separately regulated telecommunications service component, under the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners National Cable &
    Telecommunications Association, et al.:
Howard J. Symons
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris
    Glovsky and Popeo P.C.
Washington, DC
For Petitioners FCC, et al.:
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondents Brand X Internet Servs., et al.:
Harvey L. Reiter
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent MCI:
Mark D. Schneider
Jenner & Block LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondents States, et al.:
Ellen S. LeVine
California Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco, CA
For Respondents BellSouth and SBC:
Michael K. Kellogg
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
   Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.
Washington, DC
For Respondents Verizon, et al.:
Andrew G. McBride
Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP
Washington, DC


Wednesday, March 30


Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al. v. Charles E. Austin, et al.
No. 04-495

Subject:

    Prisoner Rights, Super-Maximum Security Prison, Due Process
Question:
    Where state prison officials decide to place a prisoner in a "super-maximum security" facility based on a predictive assessment of the security risk the prisoner presents, but prison regulations create a liberty interest for the prisoner in avoiding such placement, do procedures meeting the requirements specified in Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983), satisfy the prisoner's due process rights?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Wilkinson, et al.:
Douglas R. Cole
State Solicitor General
Columbus, OH
For Respondents Austin, et al.:
Jules Lobel
Center for Constitutional Rights
Pittsburgh, PA

 


Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | 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