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
|
|
|
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:
- 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explanation of the display along with nine historical documents and symbols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.
- 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.
- Whether the Lemon test should be overruled since the test is unworkable and has fostered excessive confusion in Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
- 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:
- 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?
- 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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
- 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?
- 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
|
|
|
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
Merits Phase
- American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, et al.
- American Society of Composers, et al.
- Americans for Tax Reform
- Business Software Alliance
- Commissioner of Baseball, NBA, NFL, Professional Photographers of America, et al.
- Defenders of Property Rights
- International Rights Owners
- Kids First Coalition, Christian Coalition of America, Concerned Women for America, et al.
- Law and Economics Professors
- Law Professors, Economics Professors and Treatise Authors
- Macrovision Corporation
- Professors Peter Menell, David Nimmer, Robert Merges and Justin Hughes
- Napster, Movielink, CinemaNow, MusicNet et al.
- National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, et al.
- National Association of Broadcasters
- National Association of Recording Merchandisers
- Progress and Freedom Foundation
- State Attorneys General
- United States [TEXT]
Amicus - Supporting Respondents
Merits Phase
- Altnet, Inc.
- American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
- American Conservative Union and National Taxpayers Union
- Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, et al.
- Computer Science Professors Harold Abelson, et al.
- Computing Industry Association
- Consumer Electronics Association, et al.
- Consumer Federation of America, et al.
- Creative Commons
- Distributed Computing Industry Association
- Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund
- Emerging Technology Companies
- Free Software Foundation and New Yorkers for Fair Use
- Innovation Scholars and Economists
- Intel Corporation
- Sixty Intellectual Property and Technology Law Professors, et al.
- Internet Law Faculty
- Law Professors J. Glynn Lunney, et al.
- Law Professors Edward Lee, Peter Shane and Peter Swire
- Media Studies Professors
- National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys
- National Venture Capital Association
- Charles Nesson
- Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf
- Malla Pollack and Other Law Professors
- Sharman Networks Limited
- Sovereign Artists on Behalf of Ann Wilson and Nancy Wilson, et al.
Amicus - Supporting Neither Party
|
|
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
|
|
|
