Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County, Georgia
No. 04-1618
Subject:
Eleventh Amendment, "Arm of the State," Sovereign Immunity, Admiralty
Question:
Whether an entity that does not qualify as an "arm of the State" for Eleventh Amendment purposes can nonetheless assert sovereign immunity as a defense to an admiralty suit?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Northern Ins. Co. of NY:
Miguel A. Estrada
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Chatam Co., GA:
Emily Elizabeth Garrard
Chatham Co. Attorney's Office
Savannah, GA
|
|
League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-204
Travis County, Texas, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-254
Eddie Jackson, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-276
GI Forum of Texas, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-439
Subject:
Texas Congressional Redistricting, Gerrymandering, Minority Vote Dilution, Equal Protection, First Amendment, Voting Rights Act
Questions:
League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-204
- Whether the 2003 Texas Congressional Redistricting Plan (Plan 1374C), adopted and developed using outdated, inaccurate 2000
Census data and resulting in malapportioned districts, in violation of one person, one vote when measured against 2003 Census data, and
when "the single-minded purpose of the Texas Legislature in enacting
Plan 1374C was to gain partisan advantage" and when such purpose
is realized, is an unconstitutional political gerrymander.
- Whether proof of racially polarized voting is overcome by evidence of partisan affiliation of minority voters in the analysis of the second prong of Gingles in a minority vote dilution claim.
Travis Co., TX, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-254
Does the Texas legislature's 2003 replacement of a legally valid
congressional districting plan with a statewide plan, enacted for "the singleminded purpose" of gaining partisan advantage, satisfy the stringent constitutional rule of equipopulous districts by relying on the 2000 decennial census and the fiction of inter-censal population accuracy?
Jackson, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-276
- Whether the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment prohibit States from redrawing lawful districting plans in the middle of the decade, for the sole purpose of maximizing partisan advantage.
- Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act permits a State to destroy a district effectively controlled by African-American voters, merely because it is impossible to draw a district in which African-Americans constitute an absolute mathematical majority of the population.
- Whether, under Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996), a bizarre-looking congressional district, which was intentionally drawn as a majority-Latino district by connecting two far-flung pockets of dense urban population with a 300-mile-long rural "land bridge," may escape invalidation as a racial gerrymander because drawing a compact
majority-Latino district would have required the mapmakers to compromise their political goal of maximizing Republican seats
elsewhere in the State.
GI Forum of Texas, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-439
- Whether political partisanship is sufficient justification, under section 2 and the Constitution, for dismantling a Latino-majority congressional district in order to elect the Anglo-preferred candidate.
- Whether section 2 permits a state to eliminate a majority-minority district located in one area of the state and create another majority-minority district in a different area of the state.
- Whether the District Court erred by requiring section 2 demonstrative districts to be more compact and to offer greater electoral opportunity to minority voters than the corresponding districts in the challenged redistricting plan.
- Whether the number of majority-minority districts that can be created in the state functions as the upper limit of permissible political opportunity when assessing proportionality under Johnson v. DeGrandy.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Appellants LULAC, et al.:
Rolando L. Rios
San Antonio, TX
For Appellants Travis Co., et al.:
Renea Hicks
Austin, TX
For Appellants Jackson, et al.:
Paul M. Smith
Jenner & Block, LLP
Washington, DC
For Appellants GI Forum, et al.:
Nina Perales
MALDEF
San Antonio, TX
For Appellees Perry, et al.:
R. Ted Cruz
State Solicitor General
Austin, TX
|
|
|
Monday, March 20
Adrian Martell Davis v. Washington
No. 05-5224
Subject:
Sixth Amendment, Confrontation Clause, Evidence, Excited Utterance, Hearsay, Criminal Law
Question:
Whether an alleged victim's statements to a 911 operator naming her
assailant - admitted as "excited utterances" under a jurisdiction's hearsay
law - constitute "testimonial" statements subject to the Confrontation Clause
restrictions enunciated in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Hershel Hammon v. Indiana
No. 05-5705
Subject:
Sixth Amendment, Confrontation Clause, Oral Accusation, Testimonial Statement, Criminal Law
Question:
Whether an oral accusation made to an investigating officer at the scene of an alleged crime is a testimonial statement within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Hammon:
Richard D. Friedman
Ann Arbor, MI
For Respondent Indiana:
Thomas M. Fisher
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, IN
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 21
Howard Delivery Service, Inc., et al. v. Zurich American Insurance Co.
No. 05-128
Subject:
Bankruptcy, Unsecured Claim for Unpaid Premiums, Workers' Compensation Insurance, Priority
Question:
In a bankruptcy case, is an unsecured claim for unpaid premiums owing for a
debtor's statutory workers' compensation liability insurance policy entitled to
priority under Section 507(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code as a "contribution to an
employee benefit plan arising from services rendered", as held by the Fourth and
Ninth Circuits, or is such a claim not entitled to Section 507(a)(4) priority, as held
by the Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., et al.
No. 04-607
Subject:
Patents, Monopoly Over Scientific Relationships
Question:
Whether a method patent setting forth an indefinite, undescribed, and
non-enabling step directing a party simply to "correlat[e]" test results
can validly claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship used in
medical treatment such that any doctor necessarily infringes the
patent merely by thinking about the relationship after looking at a test
result.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Gil Garcetti, et al. v. Richard Ceballos
No. 04-473
Subject:
Public Employees, Job-Related Speech, First Amendment
Questions:
- Should a public employee's purely job-related speech, expressed
strictly pursuant to the duties of employment, be cloaked with First
Amendment protection simply because it touches on a matter of public
concern, or should First Amendment protection also require the speech
to be engaged in "as a citizen", in accordance with this Court's
holdings in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)?
- Is immediate review by this Court necessary to address the growing
inter-circuit conflict on the question of whether a public employee's
purely job-related speech is constitutionally protected, especially
where the lack of uniformity dramatically impacts the ability of all
public employers to effectively manage their respective agencies?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 22
Humberto Fernandez-Vargas v. Alberto R. Gonzales
No. 04-1376
Subject:
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Illegal Aliens, Immigration Law
Question:
Whether and under what circumstances INA § 241 (a)(5) applies to an alien
who reentered the United States illegally before the effective date of IIRIRA,
April 1, 1997.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Jeanne S. Woodford, et al. v. Viet Mike Ngo
No. 05-416
Subject:
Prison Litigation Reform Act, Exhaustion of Remedies, Administrative Appeals
Question:
Does a prisoner satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act's administrative
exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally
defective administrative appeal?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners Woodford, et al.:
Jennifer G. Perkell
Deputy Attorney General
San Francisco, CA
For Respondent Ngo:
Meir Feder
Jones Day
New York, NY
|
|
|
Monday, March 27
Joseph Anza, et al. v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
No. 04-433
Subject:
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), Mail Fraud, Business Competitors
Question:
Whether a competitor is "injured in his business or property by reason of a
violation" of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
where the alleged predicate acts of racketeering activity were mail fraud but the
competitor was not the party defrauded and did not rely on the alleged fraudulent
behavior.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Ronald Banks
No. 04-1739
Subject:
First Amendment, Prisons, Prisoner Rights, Newspapers, Magazines, Photographs
Question:
Does a prison policy that denies newspapers,
magazines, and photographs to the most difficult
inmates in the prison system in an effort to promote
security and good behavior violate the First Amendment
under the standards of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1984) and Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003)?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 28
Joel Sereboff, et ux. v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
No. 05-260
Subject:
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Tort Damages, Reimbursement, Equitable Relief
Question:
Can a plan fiduciary bring a civil action against a plan participant to obtain
"appropriate equitable relief” under Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), where a term of the plan
requires the participant to reimburse medical expenses advanced by the plan if the
participant recovers money from a third-party tortfeasor and possesses such
payments in an identifiable fund?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al.
No. 05-184
Subject:
Questions:
- Whether the military commission established by the President to try
petitioner and others similarly situated for alleged war crimes in the
"war on terror" is duly authorized under Congress's Authorization for
the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224;
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); or the inherent powers of
the President?
- Whether petitioner and others similarly situated can obtain judicial
enforcement from an Article III court of rights protected under the
1949 Geneva Convention in an action for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging the legality of their detention by the Executive branch?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Hamdan:
Neal Katyal
Washington, DC
For Respondents Rumsfeld, et al.:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 29
Moises Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
No. 04-10566
Mario A. Bustillo v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
No. 05-51
Subject:
Foreign Detainees, Vienna Convention, Rights of Consular Notification, Suppression of Evidence, Treaties
Questions:
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, No. 04-10566
- Does the Vienna Convention convey individual rights of consular notification
and access to a foreign detainee enforceable in the Courts of the United
States?
- Does the state's failure to notify a foreign detainee of his rights under the
Vienna Convention result in the suppression of his statements to
police?
Bustillo v. Johnson, No. 05-51
Whether, contrary to the International Court of Justice's interpretation of
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77,
100-101, state courts may refuse to consider violations of Article 36 of
that treaty because of a procedural bar or because the treaty does not create
individually enforceable rights.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
eBay Inc., et al. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
No. 05-130
Subject:
Patent Infringement, Permanent Injunctions
Questions:
- Whether the Federal Circuit erred in setting forth a general rule in patent cases that
a district court must, absent exceptional circumstances, issue a permanent
injunction after a finding of infringement.
- Whether this Court should reconsider its precedents, including Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908), on when it is appropriate to grant an injunction against a patent infringer.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
