US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

October 2003
[Download October 2003 Argument Calendar PDF ]
[Click here for 2002 Docket ]
Tuesday, October 7

Linda Frew, et al. v. Albert Hawkins, Commissioner, Texas Health and Human Servs. Commission, et al.
No. 02-628

Subject:

Question:
  1. Do State officials waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by urging the district court to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for the district court's ongoing supervision of the officials' decree compliance?

  2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consent decree entered into by State officials unless the plaintiffs show that the "decree violation is also a violation of a federal right" remediable under [42 U.S.C.] 1983?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]

Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of Maryland
No. 22O129 (Original Jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court)

Subject:

    Water Rights, Black-Jenkins Award of 1877, Compact of 1785, Potomac River Compact of 1958
Question:
  1. Do the rights granted to Virginia pursuant to Clause IV of the Black-Jenkins Award of 1877, Article VII of the Compact of 1785, and Article VII, Section 1, of the Potomac River Compact of 1958, apply upstream of the tidal portion of the Potomac River?

  2. Do Marylands interstate compact obligations preclude it from requiring that Virginia, its governmental subdivisions and its citizens apply to Maryland for a waterway construction permit in order to build improvements appurtenant to their properties on the Virginia shore of the Potomac River?

  3. Do Marylands interstate compact obligations preclude it from requiring that Virginia, its governmental subdivisions and its citizens apply to Maryland for a water appropriation permit in order to withdraw water from the Potomac River?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Plaintiff Commonwealth of Virginia (Bill of Complaint) [PDF]

Wednesday, October 8

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
No. 02-658

Subject:

Question:
    Whether Sections 113(a)(5) and 167 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(a)(5) and 7477, authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to issue administrative orders to prevent construction of a major emitting facility where a state permitting authority is prepared to grant the facility operator a "prevention-of-significant-deterioration" air quality permit based on an arbitrary and capricious application of the statutory requirement that such sources of air pollution be subject to the best available control technology.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondents (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Raytheon Company, et al. v. Joel Hernandez
No. 02-749

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioners
  • Equal Employment Advisory Council (Petition) [PDF]

Tuesday, October 14

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Sec. Admin. v. Pauline Thomas
No. 02-763

Subject:

    Social Security Act, Disability
Question:
    Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant "shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). Under the Act, "work which exists in the national economy" means "work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The question presented is:

Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not "disabled" within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

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

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Supplemental Brief (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
No. 02-682

Subject:

    Antitrust, Standing, Civil Procedure, Class Actions
Question:
    Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the District Court's dismissal of respondent's antitrust claims?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner
  • United States and Federal Trade Commission (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

  • United States and Federal Trade Commission (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Wednesday, October 15

United States v. Lashawn Lowell Banks
No. 02-473

Subject:

Question:
    Whether law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search for illegal drugs violated the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered a small apartment in the middle of the afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Hernan O'Ryan Castro v. United States
No. 02-6683

Subject:

Question:
  1. When a U.S. District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, does such re-characterization make the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a 2255 petition a "second or successive petition" within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)?

  2. Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the Eleventh Circuit's decision affirming the dismissal of a 2255 petition for writ of habeas corpus as second or successive?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

 

Sept | 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


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More