US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

October 2001 Monday, October 1

Correctional Services Corp. v. John E. Malesko
No. 00-860

Subject:

    Bivens Claim, Private Prisons
Question:
    Whether a private corporation operating a Community Corrections Center that houses and provides services to federal prisoners under a contract with the Bureau of Prisons is subject to suit under the implied damages action this Court recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondent [TEXT]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Civil Liberties Union [PDF]

Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, et al. v. Janette Knudson, et vir
No. 99-1786

Subject:

    ERISA, Health Care Plans, Subrogation, Reimbursement
Question:
    Whether a civil action brought under Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), to redress a violation of, or to enforce, a term of a plan that requires a plan participant or beneficiary to reimburse the plan for medical expenses paid by the plan if the participant or beneficiary receives a recovery from a third-party tortfeasor, constitutes an action for "appropriate equitable relief" authorized by Section 502(a)(3).
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • American Association of Health Plans et al. [PDF]
  • National Association of Subrogation Professionals, Inc. [MS-WORD]
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Tuesday, October 2

Chickasaw Nation v. United States
No. 00-507

Subject:

    American Indians, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Excise Taxes
Question:
    Whether Section 20(d) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2719(d), exempts Native American Tribes from the wagering excise and occupational taxes imposed by Sections 4401 and 4411 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. Gulf Power Company, et al.
No. 00-832

Federal Communications Commission and United States v. Gulf Power Company, et al.
No. 00-843

Subject:

    Pole Attachments Act, Cable Television, Wire Telecommunications, Federal Communications Commission
Question:
  • Whether those provisions of the Pole Attachments Act apply to attachments by cable television systems that are simultaneously used to provide high-speed Internet access and conventional cable television programming.

  • Whether those provisions of the Pole Attachments Act apply to attachments by providers of wireless telecommunications services no less than to attachments by providers of wireline telecommunications services.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner FCC and United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner FCC and United States - Appendix (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner FCC and United States - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

  • Petitioner FCC and United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner National Cable Television Association Inc. [PDF] [MS-WORD]
  • Respondent WorldCom Inc. [PDF] [MS-WORD]
  • Respondent Florida Power & Light Co. [PDF] [MS-WORD]
  • Petitioner FCC and United States - Reply [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Wednesday, October 3

New York, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.
Enron Power Marketing, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.
Nos. 00-568, 00-809

Subject:

    Public Utilities, Equal Access, Electric Transmission Lines
Question:
  1. Whether the Commission's open access regulations are permissible under Sections 205 and 206 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e.

  2. Whether the Commission properly concluded that Section 201 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824, authorizes the Commission to assert jurisdiction over interstate transmission service involved in a retail sale transaction where States have unbundled such transactions into separate transmission and sales services, but does not require the Commission to assert jurisdiction over transmission service that remains bundled with local retail sales and distribution service.

  3. Whether Section 201 of the FPA authorizes the Commission to assert jurisdiction over facilities that may be used both for local distribution to retail customers and for transmission of electric energy to wholesale purchasers.

  4. Whether Section 201 of the FPA bars the Commission from allowing utilities to recover certain stranded costs caused by the unbundling of retail electric service.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

  • Respondent Edison Electric Institute [PDF]
  • Respondent Electricity Consumers Resource Council et al. [PDF]
  • Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent Transmission Access Policy Group [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondents:
  • Electrical Engineers et al. [PDF]

J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl.
No. 99-1996

Subject:

    Intellectual Property, Patents, Agriculture, Seeds
Question:
    Whether sexually reproduced plants are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Intellectual Proeprty Law Association [PDFPDF]
  • United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Neither Party:
  • Malla Pollack et al. - Reversal [PDF]

Tuesday, October 9

Postal Service v. Maria A. Gregory
No. 00-758

Subject:

    Civil Service Reform Act, Employment, Discipline
Question:
    Whether a federal agency, when disciplining or removing an employee for misconduct pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., may take account of prior disciplinary actions that are the subject of pending grievance proceedings.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

TRW Inc. v. Adelaide Andrews
No. 00-1045

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the limitation period under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., which allows private damage actions "to enforce any liability created under [the Act]" to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises," begins to run at the time of an alleged violation, even if the potential plaintiff has no reason to know that she has been injured.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • National Association of Consumer Advocates et al. [TEXT]
  • United States et al. [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Wednesday, October 10

EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc.
No. 99-1823

Subject:

    EEOC, Arbitration, Labor and Employment
Question:
    Whether an employee's agreement to arbitrate employment-related disputes with an employer bars the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as plaintiff in an enforcement action against the employer, from obtaining victim-specific remedies for discrimination against the employee, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

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

  • Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Joint Appendix [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • National Employment Lawyers Association et al. [PDF]
  • National Whistleblower Center [TEXT]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Equal Employment Advisory Council [PDF]

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.
No. 00-511

WorldCom, Inc., et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al.
No. 00-555

Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Iowa Utilities Board, et al.
No. 00-587

AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, et al.
00-590

General Communications, Inc. v. Iowa Utilities Board, et al.
No. 00-602

Subject:

    Telecommunications Act of 1996, Federal Communications Commission, Interconnection Rates
Question:
  1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that 47 U.S.C. Sec. 252(d)(1) (Telecommunications Act of 1996) forecloses the cost methodology adopted by the FCC, which is based on the efficient replacement cost of existing technology, for determining the interconnection rates that new entrants into local telecommunications markets must pay incumbent local telephone companies.

  2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that neither the Takings Clause nor the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires incorporation of an incumbent local exchange carrier's "historical" costs into the rates that it may charge new entrants for access to its network elements.

  3. Whether 47 U.S.C. Sec. 251(c)(3) prohibits regulators from requiring that incumbent local telephone companies combine certain previously uncombined network elements when a new entrant requests the combination and agrees to compensate the incumbent for performing that task.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner United States and FCC (Petition) (00-587) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner United States and FCC - Reply (Petition) (00-587) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Respondent United States Telecom Association et al. (Petition) (00-555, 00-587, 00-590, 00-602) [PDF]

  • Respondent FCC and United States (Petition) (00-511) [PDF] [TEXT]

  • Petitioner United States and FCC [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner United States and FCC - Reply [PDF] [TEXT]

  • Petitioner WorldCom Inc. et al. [PDF]
  • Petitioner WorldCom Inc. et al. - Reply [PDF]

Monday, October 29

Larry D. Dusenbery v. United States
No. 00-6567

Subject:

    Administrative Forfeiture, Notice, Prisoners
Question:
    Whether the United States satisfied the notice requirements of the Due Process Clause by sending a federal prisoner notice of an administrative forfeiture proceeding by certified mail addressed to the prisoner at the prison where he was incarcerated.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Remon Lee v. Mike Kemna, Superintendent, Crossroads Correctional Center
No. 00-6933

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [TEXT]

Tuesday, October 30

John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. The Free Speech Coalition, et al.
No. 00-795

Subject:

    Child Pornography Prevention Act, First Amendment, Free Speech
Question:
    The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, prohibits, inter alia, the shipment, distribution, receipt, reproduction, sale, or possession of any visual depiction that "appears to be[] of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8)(B) (Supp. IV 1998). It also contains a similar prohibition concerning any visual depiction that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8)(D) (Supp. IV 1998). The question presented is whether those prohibitions violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

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

  • Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (Petition) [PDF]

  • Senator Sam Brownback et al. [TEXT]
  • National Law Center for Children and Families et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Civil Liberties Union et al. [PDF]

Kansas v. Michael T. Crane
No. 00-957

Subject:

    Sexual Predators, Due Process, Civil Confinement
Question:
    Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires a State to prove that a sexually violent predator "cannot control" his criminal sexual behavior before the State can civilly commit him for residential care and treatment?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Association for the Treatment of Substance Abusers [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. [PDF]

Wednesday, October 31

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
No. 00-730

Subject:

    Equal Protection Clause, Fifth Amendment, Subcontractor Compensation Clauses, Affirmative Action
Question:
  1. Whether the court of appeals misapplied the strict scrutiny standard in determining if Congress had a compelling interest to enact legislation designed to remedy the effects of racial discrimination.

  2. Whether the United States Department of Transportation's current Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [TEXT]
  • Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner (Petition) - Reply [TEXT]

  • Petitioner [TEXT]
  • Respondent [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Respondent (Appendix) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Reply [TEXT]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Atlantic Legal Foundation [TEXT]
  • The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence [PDF] [RTF]
  • Pacific Legal Foundation et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Minority Businesss Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. et al. [PDF]
  • National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium et al. [PDF]

Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc.
No. 00-927

Subject:

    Employment, Worker Safety, OSHA, Coast Guard
Question:
    Whether the United States Coast Guard has “exercise[d] statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health” concerning the “working conditions of employees” (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)) on "uninspected vessel[s]" (46 U.S.C. 2101(43)) so as to displace application of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More