US Supreme Court Docket
[Download March 24-31, 2003 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2001 Docket]
Charles T. Sell v. United States
No. 02-5664
Subject:
-
Forced Medication, Competency to Stand Trial, First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments
-
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioners argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 8th Circuit [PDF], Filed: March 7, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: November 4, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Briefing Order: February 28, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 16, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties
- Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]
- Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
- Respondent - Supplemental Brief (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner - Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc., et al. (Petition) [PDF]
- Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (Petition) [PDF]
- Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (Merits) [PDF]
- Drug Policy Alliance (Merits) [PDF]
- The Rutherford Institute (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Neither Party - American Psychological Association (Merits) [PDF]
Madigan, Att'y Gen. of IL v. Telemarketing Associates
No. 01-1806
Subject:
-
First Amendment, State Rights, Charity, Federalism
-
Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a state from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority of all funds donated.
- Illinois Supreme Court, Filed: November 21, 2001
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: November 4, 2002 United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 5, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties
- Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
- Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Tuesday, March 4
National Park Hospitality Assn. v. Department of the Interior, et al.
No. 02-196
Subject:
-
Contract Disputes Act of 1978, National Parks Regulations
-
Whether a National Park Service regulation that states that National Park Service concession agreements are not contracts within the meaning of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., is valid.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - DC Circuit, Filed: March 1, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: November 12, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 27, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties:
- Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]
- Federal Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
- Federal Respondents (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Wednesday, March 5
United States, et al. v. American Library Assn., Inc., et al.
No. 02-361
Subject:
-
Children's Internet Protection Act, Libraries, Internet Access, First Amendment
-
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div. B, Tit. XVII, 114 Stat. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) (Supp. V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. § 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of a "technology protection measure" on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to "visual depictions" that are "obscene" or "child pornography," and that protects against access by minors to "visual depictions" that are "harmful to minors." 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp. V 1999); 20 U.S.C. § 9134(f)(1).
The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, thereby exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
- U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Pennsylvania [TEXT] [PDF], Filed: May 31, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Probable Jurisdiction Noted: November 12, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 23, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties:
- Appellants (Jurisdictional Statement) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Appellants - Appendix (Jurisdictional Statement) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Appellees American Library Association, et al. - Response (Motion to Affirm) [PDF]
- Appellees Multnomah County Public Library, et al. - Response (Jurisdictional Statement) [PDF]
- Appellants - Reply (Jurisdictional Statement) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Appellants (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Appellees American Library Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Appellees Multnomah County Public Library, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Appellants - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Joint Appendix - Vol. 1 (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Joint Appendix - Vol. 2 (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Joint Appendix - Vol. 3 (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Amicus - Appellants - American Center for Law and Justice, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Cities, Mayors, County Commissioners (Merits) [PDF]
- National Law Center for Children and Families, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Public Libraries of Greenville, SC, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- State of Texas (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Appellees - Association of American Publishers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law (Merits) [PDF]
- Cleveland Public Library, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Jonathan Wallace d/b/a The Ethical Spectacle (Merits) [TEXT]
- Online Policy Group, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
Amicus - Neither Party - National School Boards Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Susan Jinks v. Richland County SC
No. 02-258
Subject:
-
Supplemental Jurisdiction, State Rights, Tenth Amendment, Federalism
-
Whether the tolling provision of the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), invades state sovereignty in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Tenth Amendment and its Necessary and Proper Clause.
- Supreme Court of South Carolina, Filed: April 22, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 21, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 22, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
- United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- United States - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Monday, March 24
Khanh Phuong Nguyen v. United States, et al.
No. 01-10873
Tuyet Mai Thi Phan v. United States
No. 02-5034
Subject:
-
Article III, U.S. Constitution; U.S. Territories; Civil Procedure
-
Whether the ruling upholding petitioners' convictions is invalid because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel that issued it included a non-Article III judge.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit [PDF], Filed: March 25, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: November 4, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 9, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet (No. 01-10873) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Docket Sheet (No. 02-5034) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Kevin Wiggins v. Warden Smith, et al.
No. 02-311
Subject:
-
Death Penalty, Sixth Amendment, Effective Assistance of Counsel, Criminal Law
-
Does defense counsel in a capital case violate the requirements of Strickland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as the Supreme Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most appeals court have concluded, or is a defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background?
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 4th Circuit, Filed: May 5, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: November 18, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 26, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties
- Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
- Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
- Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
- Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Petitioner - American Bar Association (Merits) [PDF]
- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- National Association of Social Workers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Janet F. Reno, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Respondents - Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
- United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Tuesday, March 25
Federal Election Commission v. Christine Beaumont, et al.
No. 02-403
Subject:
-
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, First Amendment, Political Advocacy
-
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 4th Circuit, Filed: January 25, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: November 18, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 16, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties
- Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Respondents (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner - Association of Trial Lawyers of America (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
- Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law (Merits) [PDF]
- Public Citizen, Inc., Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Respondents - American Taxpayers Alliance (Merits) [PDF]
- Pacific Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
- RealCampaignReform.org, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Wednesday, March 26
William Overton, Dir., Michigan Dept. of Corrections, et al. v. Michelle Bazzetta, et al.
No. 02-94
Subject:
-
Prisoner Rights, First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Civl Rights
- Whether prisoners have a right to non-contact visitation protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Whether the restrictions on non-contact prison visitation imposed by the Michigan Department of Corrections are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
- Whether the restrictions on non-contact prison visitation imposed by the Michigan Department of Corrections constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: April 10, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 2, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 16, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties
- Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Petitioners - Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
- United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Amicus - Respondents - American Civil Liberties Union, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- National Council on Crime and Delinquency, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
John G. Lawrence, et al. v. Texas
No. 02-102
Subject:
-
Sexual Orientation, Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment, Privacy, Criminal Law
- Whether Petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas
"Homosexual Conduct" law - which criminalizes sexual
intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior
by different-sex couples - violate the Fourteenth
Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws?
- Whether Petitioners' criminal convictions for adult
consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital
interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
- Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
- Texas Court of Appeals - 14th District, Filed: March 15, 2001
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 2, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 26, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
- Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
- Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
- Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
- Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Petitioners - Stonewall Law Association, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
- Alliance of Baptists, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- American Bar Association (Merits) [PDF]
- American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Texas (Merits) [PDF]
- American Psychological Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- American Public Health Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Cato Institute (Merits) [PDF]
- Constitutional Law Professors, Bruce Ackerman, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Human Rights Campaign, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Institute for Justice (Merits) [PDF]
- Log Cabin Republicans and Liberty Education Reform (Merits) [PDF]
- National Lesbian and Gay Law Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- National Organization for Women (NOW) Legal Defense and Education Fund (Merits) [PDF]
- Professors of History, George Chauncey, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Mary Robinson, Amnesty International, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Republican Unity Coalition and Alan K. Simpson (Merits) [PDF]
- Stonewall Law Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Respondent - Pro Family Law Center (Petition) [PDF]
- American Center for Law and Justice (Merits) [PDF]
- American Family Association, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Center for Arizona Policy and Pro-Family Network (Merits) [PDF]
- Center for Law and Justice International (Merits) [PDF]
- Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution (Merits) [PDF]
- Concerned Women for America (Merits) [PDF]
- Family Research Council, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Liberty Counsel (Merits) [PDF]
- Public Advocate of the United States, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- States of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah (Merits) [PDF]
- Texas Eagle Forum, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Texas Legislators, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Texas Physicians Resource Council, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Monday, March 31
Inyo County, et al. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians, et al.
No. 02-281
Subject:
-
Tribal Sovereign Immunity, Native Americans, Search and Seizure, Civil Rights Actions, Qualified Immunity
- Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enables Indian tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause.
- Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
- Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: January 4, 2002
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Order Amending Opinion and Denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Filed: May 20, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 2, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 19, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties:
- Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]
- Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
- Joint Appendix (Merits) [PDF]
- Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Petitioners - California State Sheriffs' Assn. (Petition) [PDF]
- Los Angeles County District Attorney, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
- National Sheriffs' Assn., et al. (Petition) [PDF]
- States of California, Alabama, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
- California State Sheriffs' Assn. (Merits) [PDF]
- Los Angeles County District Attorney, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- National Sheriffs' Assn., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- States of California, Alabama, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners in Part, Respondents in Part - United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents in Part - States of New Mexico and Washington (Merits) [PDF]
Marion R. Stogner v. California
No. 01-1757
Subject:
-
Ex Post Facto Laws, Due Process, Criminal Law, Civil Rights
- Did the California Legislature's abolition of the
statute of limitations requirement, which historically comprised
an element of the crimes charged, so as to charge Petitioner
retroactively, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause?
- Did the California Legislature's abolition of the statute of limitations arbitrarily retract a liberty interest the state had conferred on Petitioner?
- California Court of Appeal - First Appellate District, Filed: November 21, 2001
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 2, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 26, 2003
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties
- Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
- Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
- Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
- Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Petitioner - National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Respondent - American Psychological Assn., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader
Was this helpful?