Supreme Court Docket



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

February 2006

[Download February 2006 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2004 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.

Tuesday, February 21

John A. Rapanos, et ux., et al. v. United States
No. 04-1034

June Carabell, et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
No. 04-1384

Subject:

    Clean Water Act, Unpermitted Discharge, Navigable Waters, Nonnavigable Wetlands, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands
Questions:
Rapanos, et al. v. United States, No. 04-1034
  1. Does the Clean Water Act prohibition on unpermitted discharges to "navigable waters" extend to nonnavigable wetlands that do not even abut a navigable water?

  2. Does extension of Clean Water Act jurisdiction to every intrastate wetland with any sort of hydrological connection to navigable waters, no matter how tenuous or remote the connection, exceed Congress' constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states?
Carabell, et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al., No. 04-1384
  1. Does the Clean Water Act extend to wetlands that are hydrologically isolated from any of the "waters of the United States?"

  2. Do the limits on Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce preclude an interpretation of the Clean Water Act that would extend federal authority to wetlands that are hydrologically isolated from any of the "waters of the United States?"
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
    [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Rapanos, et al.:
M. Reed Hopper
Pacific Legal Foundation
Sacramento, CA
For Petitioners Carabell, et al.:
Timothy A. Stoepker
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Detroit, MI
For Respondent United States:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC

S.D. Warren Company v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection
No. 04-1527

Subject:

    Clean Water Act, Dams, Discharge
Question: Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
    [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner S.D. Warren Company:
Matthew D. Manahan
Pierce Atwood Portland, ME
For Respondent Maine Bd. of Env. Protection:
Carol Blasi
Assistant Attorney General
Augusta, ME

Wednesday, February 22

Donald Curtis Samson v. California
No. 04-9728

Subject:

    Fourth Amendment, Warrentless Search, Parolees, Criminal Law
Question:
    Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit police from conducting a warrantless search of a person who is subject to a parole search condition, where there is no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing and the sole reason for the search is that the person is on parole?
Decisions:
  • Court of Appeal of California, Unpublished Opinion Filed: October 14, 2004
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: September 27, 2005

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
    [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Samson:
Robert A. Long Jr.
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC
For Respondent California:
Ronald E. Niver
Deputy Attorney General
San Francisco, CA

Bobby Lee Holmes v. South Carolina
No. 04-1327

Subject:

    Evidence, Third-Party Guilt Evidence, Due Process, Confrontation, Compulsory Process, Criminal Law
Question:
    Whether South Carolina's rule governing the admissibility of third-party guilt evidence violates a criminal defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense grounded in the Due Process, Confrontation, and Compulsory Process Clauses?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
    [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Holmes:
William A. Norris
Akin Gump
Los Angeles, CA
For Respondent South Carolina:
Donald John Zelenka
Deputy Attorney General
Columbia, SC

Monday, February 27

Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Heidi Ahlborn
No. 04-1506

Subject:

    Federal Medicaid, Right to Payment from Third Party, Assignment, Pre-Death Lien, Reimbursement, Personal Injury Settlement
Question:
    Whether federal Medicaid law, which requires that a medical assistance recipient assign to the state any right to payment from a third party who is liable for the recipient's medical expenses, and which also prohibits the placement of a pre-death lien upon a recipient's "property," entitles the state to full reimbursement from personal injury settlement proceeds of Medicaid benefits paid on the recipient's behalf, regardless of what portion of the settlement proceeds are designated as compensation for medical care?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Arkansas DHS, et al.:
Lori L. Freno-Engman
Deputy Attorney General
Little Rock, AR
For Respondent Ahlborn:
Herbert David Blair
Blair & Stroud
Batesville, AR

Patrick Day v. James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
No. 04-1324

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus, Statute of Limitations, Waiver, Sua Sponte Dismissal, Criminal Law
Questions:
  1. Does the State waive a limitations defense to a habeas corpus petition when it fails to plead or otherwise raise that defense and expressly concedes that the petition was timely?

  2. Does Habeas Rule 4 permit a district court to dismiss a habeas petition sua sponte after the State has filed an answer based on a ground not raised in the answer?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Day:
J. Brett Busby
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
Houston, TX
For Respondent McDonough:
Charles R. McCoy
Deputy Attorney General
Tallahassee, FL

Tuesday, February 28

Neil Randall, et al. v. William H. Sorrell, et al.
No. 04-1528

Vermont Republican State Committee, et al. v. William H. Sorrell, et al.
No. 04-1530

William H. Sorrell, et al. v. Neil Randall, et al.
No. 04-1697

Subject:

    First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Vermont's Mandatory Limits On Candidate Expenditures, Independent Campaign Expenditures, Campaign Contribution Limits
Questions:
Randall, et al. v. Sorrell, et al., No. 04-1528
  1. Whether Vermont's mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the First Amendment and this Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

  2. Whether Vermont's treatment of independent expenditures by political parties and committees as presumptively coordinated if they benefit fewer than six candidates, and thereby subject to strict contribution and expenditure limits, is consistent with the First Amendment and this Court's decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 518 U.S. 604 (1996).

  3. Whether Vermont's contribution limits, which are the lowest in the country, which allow only a single maximum contribution in an entire two-year general election cycle, and which prohibit even state political parties from contributing more than $400 to their gubernatorial candidate, fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold and should be struck down.
VT Republican State Comm., et al. v. Sorrell, et al., No. 04-1530
  1. Whether Vermont's mandatory candidate expenditure limits violate the freedom of political speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

  2. Whether Vermont's $200-$400 limits per election cycle on campaign contributions to state candidates violate the freedoms of political speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because they are unconstitutionally low.
    B
  3. Whether Vermont's presumption of coordination, which provides that an expenditure made by a political party or political committee that primarily benefits six or fewer candidates is presumed to be a related expenditure subject to contribution limits, violates the freedoms of political speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Sorrell, et al. v. Randall, et al., No. 04-1697
    Whether Vermont's mandatory limits on campaign expenditures by candidates for public office are constitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Neil Randall, et al.:
Mitchell L. Pearl
Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP
Middlebury, VT
For VT Republican State Comm., et al.:
James Bopp Jr.
Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom
Terre Haute, IN
For William H. Sorrell, et al.:
Timothy B. Tomasi
Deputy Attorney General
Montpelier, VT

Vickie Lynn Marshall v. E. Pierce Marshall
No. 04-1544

Subject:

    Federal Jurisdiction, Probate Exception, Congressional Intent, Trusts, Wills
Question:
  1. What is the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction?

  2. Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply where a federal court is not asked to probate a will, administer an estate, or otherwise assume control of property in the custody of a state probate court?

  3. Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply to cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (28 U.S.C. § 1331), including the Bankruptcy Code (28 U.S.C. § 1334), or is it limited to cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship?

  4. Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply to cases arising out of trusts, or is it limited to cases involving wills?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner V. Marshall:
Kent L. Richland
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, LLP
Los Angeles, CA
For Respondent E.P. Marshall:
George Eric Brunstad Jr.
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Hartford, CT

 

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