Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

Index | October | November | December | January | February | March | April

December 2000 Friday, December 1, 2000

BUSH v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD
No. 00-836

Subject:
Elections

Question:

  • Whether post-election judicial limitations on the discretion granted by the legislature to state executive officials to certify election results, and/or post-election judicially created standards for the determination of controversies concerning the appointment of presidential electors, violate the Due Process Clause or 3 U.S.C. ยง 5, which requires that a State resolve controversies relating to the appointment of electors under "laws enacted prior to" election day.

  • Whether the state court's decision, which cannot be reconciled with state statutes enacted before the election was held, is inconsistent with Article II, Section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution, which provides that electors shall be appointed by each State "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."

  • What would be the consequences of this Court's finding that the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida does not comply with 3 U.S.C. Sec. 5?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Appendix (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent Gore - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent LePore - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent Harris - Response (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent Butler - Response (Petition) [PDF]
  • Broward County Canvassing Board et al. - Response (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

  • Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent Butterworth [PDF]
  • Respondent Gore [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent Harris [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent Palm Beach County Canvassing Board [PDF] [RTF]
  • Joint Appendix [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent Butterworth - Reply [PDF]
  • Respondent Gore - Reply [PDF]
  • Respondent Gore - Supplement [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • American Civil Rights Union [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Commonwealth of Virginia et al. [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • State of Alabama et al. [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • William H. Haynes et al. [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Civil Liberties Union [PDF] [RTF]
  • State of Iowa et al. [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Neither Party:
  • Coalition for Local Sovereignty [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Disenfranchised Voters in the USA [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Florida Senate et al. [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Monday, December 4

BUCKMAN COMPANY v. PLAINTIFFS' LEGAL COMMITTEE
No. 98-1768

Subject:
Federal Drug Administration, Supremacy Clause, Fraud

Question:
Whether federal law preempts state-law tort claims alleging fraud on the Food and Drug Administration during the regulatory process for marketing clearance applicable to certain medical devices.

Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

ATWATER v. CITY OF LAGO VISTA
No. 99-1408

Subject:
Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, Seat Belts, Custodial Arrest

Question:
Petitioner Gail Atwater was placed under custodial arrest for not wearing a seat belt, a misdemeanor that carries a fifty-dollar fine as its maximum penalty. Does the Fourth Amendment limit the use of custodial arrests for fine-only traffic offenses?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Tuesday, December 5

SEMTEK INTERNATIONAL INC. v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.
No. 99-1551

Subject:
Res Judicata, Statute of Limitations, Full Faith and Credit

Question:

  1. Is this Court's holding in Dupasseur -- that the res judicata effect of the judgment of a federal court sitting in diversity "is such as would belong to judgments of the State courts rendered under similar circumstances," and that "no higher sanctity or effect can be claimed," 88 U.S. at 135 -- still good law?

  2. If Dupasseur is overruled or modifed by this Court, what should be the res judicata effect of a statute-of-limitations dismissal in a federal court diversity suit?

Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

BARTNICKI v. VOPPER
UNITED STATES v. VOPPER
Nos. 99-1687, 99-1728

Subject:
First Amendment, Federal Wiretapping Act

Question:
Whether the imposition of civil liability under 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(c) and (d) for using or disclosing the contents of illegally intercepted communications, where the defendant knows or has reason to know that the interception was unlawful but is not alleged to have participated in or encouraged it, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Wednesday, December 6

TEXAS v. COBB
No. 99-1702

RESCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2000

GTE SERVICE CORP. v. FCC
No. 99-1244

Subject:
Federal Communications Commission, 1996 Telecommunications Act, Universal Service Order

Question:

  1. Whether the universal-service provisions of 47 U.S.C. 254 (Supp. III 1997) violate the Taxing Clause or the Origination Clause or are void for vagueness.

  2. Whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reasonably determined that, under 47 U.S.C. 254(f) and 332(c)(3)(A) (Supp. III 1997), providers of commercial mobile radio services must contribute to state universal-service subsidies.

  3. Whether the FCC may, consistent with the Takings Clause, adopt a forward-looking cost methodology to determine the proper level of federal universal-service subsidies.

  4. Whether the FCC has statutory jurisdiction to consider a telecommunications carrier's intrastate revenues, as well as its interstate revenues, to determine the carrier's contribution to the federal universal-service program for schools, libraries, and rural health-care facilities.

Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

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

  • Respondent National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) [WP] [TEXT] [RTF]
Monday, December 11

BUSH v. GORE
No. 00-949

Subject:
Elections

Question:

  1. Whether the Florida Supreme Court erred in establishing new standards for resolving presidential election contests that conflict with legislative enactments and thereby violate Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which provides that electors shall be appointed by each State "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."

  2. Whether the Florida Supreme Court erred in establishing post-election judicially created standards that threaten to overturn the certified results of the election for President in the State of Florida and that fail to comply with the requirements of 3 U.S.C. ยง 5, which gives conclusive effect to state court determinations only if those determinations are made "pursuant to" "laws enacted prior to" election day.

  3. Whether the use of arbitrary, standardless and selective manual recounts to determine the results of a presidential election, including post-election judicially created selective and capricious recount procedures, that vary both across counties and within counties in the State of Florida violates the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • Applicant - Emergency Application for a Stay [PDF]
  • Applicant - Emergency Application for a Stay (Index) [PDF]
  • Applicant - Emergency Application for a Stay (Supplement) [PDF]
  • Respondent - Opposition [PDF] [TEXT]

  • Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Table of Authorities [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Appendix [PDF]
  • Respondent Glenda Carr et al. for Petitioners [PDF]
  • Respondent Glenda Carr et al. for Petitioners - Appendix [PDF]
  • Respondent Stephen Cruce et al. for Petitioners [PDF]
  • Respondent Gore [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Respondent Gore - Appendix [PDF]
  • Respondent Katherine Harris et al. [PDF]
  • Respondent John E. Thrasher for Petitioners [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Alabama [PDF]
  • William H. Haynes et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Brennan Center for Justice (NYU) [PDF]
  • Robert A. Butterworth (Florida Attorney General) [PDF]
  • National Bar Association [PDF]

    Amicus - Neither Party:
  • Florida House of Representatives - Reversal [PDF]
  • Robert Harris et al. [PDF]
  • Mary Ann Smania [PDF]
  • Michael F. Wasserman [PDF]

Was this helpful?

Response sent, thank you

Copied to clipboard