Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

 

February 2001

Tuesday, February 20

KYLLO v. UNITED STATES
No. 99-8508

Subject:
Fourth Amendment, Warrantless Search, Thermal Imaging Scan

Question:

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner [Word] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [Word] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Supplemental Appendix [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. [PDF]
  • DKT Liberty Project [PDF]

 

LACKAWANNA COUNTY D.A. v. COSS
No. 99-1884

Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Sentence Enhancement, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Question:
Does the custody requirement of the federal habeas corpus statute preclude, under all circumstances, a challenge upon a fully expired conviction that was used to enhance a current conviction under habeas attack and for which the prisoner is presently in custody?

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:

 

U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Filed: November 9, 1990

  • U.S. Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit, Filed: January 16, 1992
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Filed: June 22, 1994
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit, Filed: August 30, 1995
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit, Filed: December 26, 1995
  • United States Supreme Court, Affirmed for Absence of Quorom: October 7, 1996
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims, June 6, 1997
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit, Decided: August 5, 1999
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit, December 20, 1999
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit, February 9, 2000
  • United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 21, 2001

    • 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:

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

       

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

      Amicus - Respondent:
    • Federal Judges Association [PDF]
    • Los Angeles County Bar Association et al. [PDF]

    Wednesday, February 21

    Kestutis Zadvydas v. Christine G. Davis and Immigration and Naturalization Service
    (Formerly ZADVYDAS v. UNDERDOWN)
    No. 99-7791

    Subject:
    Immigration, Due Process, Deportation, Stateless Person, Indefinite Detention

    Question:

    1. Does the Due Process Clause prohibit the prolonged indefinite detention of petitioner after entry of a final deportation order when deportation is not reasonably foreseeable.

       

    2. To avoid a substantial constitutional question, should this Court construe 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) to authorize only a reasonable period of detention after a deportation order because the statute is silent as to length of confinement.

    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:

     

    RENO v. MA
    No. 00-38

    Subject:
    Immigration, Habeas Corpus, Deportation, Indefinite Detention

    Question:
    Whether the Attorney General is authorized to continue to detain an alien beyond the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) (Supp. IV 1998) if the alien cannot be removed immediately from the country but the Attorney General has determined that the alien would pose a risk of flight or danger to the community if released, and the alien's custody is subject to periodic administrative review.

    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:

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

       

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

      Amicus - Respondent:
    • American Association of Jews from the Former USSR et al. [PDF]
    • American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [PDF]
    • Lawyers Committee for Human Rights [PDF]

     

    NLRB v. KENTUCKY RIVER COMMUNITY CARE, INC.
    No. 99-1815

    Subject:
    National Labor Relations Act, Unions, Employers, Supervisors, Nurses

    Question:

    1. Whether the National Labor Relations Board reasonably concluded that an employee's exercise of ordinary professional or technical judgment in directing less-skilled employees to deliver services in accordance with employer-specified standards does not constitute the exercise of "independent judgment" that makes the employee a "supervisor" under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 152(11).

       

    2. Whether the Board permissibly requires the party who alleges that an employee is excluded from the rights and protections afforded by the Act as a supervisor to bear the burden of proving the individual's supervisory status.

       

    3. Whether, applying its interpretation of "independent judgment" and its allocation of the burden of proving supervisory status, the Board reasonably concluded that respondent's registered nurses are "employees," rather than supervisors, and thus entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the Act.

    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:

    Monday, February 26

    COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC.
    No. 99-2035

    Subject:
    Punitive Damages, Standard of Review

    Question:

    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:

      Parties:
    • Petitioner [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
    • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

      Amicus - Petitioner:
    • Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America [PDF]

     

    LUJAN v. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC.
    No. 00-152

    Subject:
    Due Process, Notices, Hearings, Wage Requirements

    Question:

    • Whether the discretionary withholding of funds by a prime contractor from his subcontractor, where authorized by statute, constitutes state action.

       

    • Whether a subcontractor who has not alleged that he has an entitlement to public funds can state a claim for denial of due process based on the state's withholding of said funds from his prime contractor.

       

    • Whether nonpayment to a private contractor by a state agency under the terms of a commercial contract constitutes a deprivation of due process.

       

    • Whether a post-deprivation hearing pursuant to common law or statutory remedies satisfies the requirements of due process.

       

    • Whether a subcontractor not targeted by a withholding statute suffers a denial of due process where his loss is at most indirect.

    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:

     

    PALAZZOLO v. RHODE ISLAND
    No. 99-2047

    Subject:
    Fifth Amendment, Takings

    Question:

    1. Whether a regulatory takings claim is categorically barred whenever the enactment of the regulation predates the claimant's acquisition of the property.

       

    2. Where a land-use agency has authoritatively denied a particular use of the property and the owner alleges that such denial per se constitutes a regulatory taking, whether the owner must file additional applications seeking permission for "less ambitious uses" in order to ripen the takings claim.

       

    3. Whether the remaining permissible uses of regulated property are economically viable merely because the property retains a value greater than zero.

    Decisions:

    Resources:

    Briefs:

    Tuesday, February 27

    BUCKHANNON BOARD & CARE HOME v. WV DEPT. HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCES
    No. 99-1848

    Subject:
    Attorney Fees, Fair Housing Amendments Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Catalyst Theory

    Question:
    Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in its interpretation of Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), in S-1 and S-2, in concluding that the catalyst theory is no longer available for civil rights plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees.

    Decisions:

    Resources:

    Briefs:

      Parties:
    • Petitioner [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
    • Respondent [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
    • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

      Amicus - Petitioner:
    • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
    • Public Citizen et al. [PDF]

      Amicus - Respondent:
    • Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. [PDF]
    • Los Angeles County et al. [PDF]
    • National Conference of State Legislatures et al. [PDF]
    • Pacific Legal Foundation [PDF]
    • State of Maryland et al. [PDF]

     

    UNITED STATES v. CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL
    No. 00-203

    Subject:
    Taxes, Back Wages, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)

    Question:
    Whether, for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, 26 U.S.C. 3101-3128, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. 3301-3311, an award of back wages should be attributed to the year the award was actually paid or, instead, to the year that the events occurred that gave rise to the award.

    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:

    Wednesday, February 28

    GOOD NEWS CLUB v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
    No. 99-2036

    Subject:
    First Amendment, Free Speech, School Access, Religious Instruction

    Question:

    1. Whether a public school that permits speakers to use its facilities after school hours to instruct "in any branch of education, learning or the arts," to "benefit the welfare of the community," and to "promote the morals of children," but forbids speakers whose speech it deems to be too religious from using its facilities, engages in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the United States Constitution?

       

    2. Whether a governmental official's determination whether speech is "a discussion of morals from a religious viewpoint" (which is deemed to be permissible speech) or is "religious instruction" (which is deemed to be impermissible speech) unconstitutionally entangles the state with religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution?

    Decisions:

    Resources:

    Briefs:

      Parties:
    • Petitioner [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
    • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

      Amicus - Petitioner:
    • 20 Theologians and Scholars of Religion [PDF]
    • American Center for Law & Justice et al. [PDF]
    • Sally Campbell [PDF]
    • Child Evangelism Fellowship, Inc. et al. [PDF]
    • Christian Legal Society et al. [PDF]
    • Carol Hood [PDF]
    • National Council of Churches et al. [PDF]
    • National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA) [PDF]
    • Northstar Legal Center et al. [PDF]
    • Douglas Laycock [PDF]
    • Liberty Counsel [PDF]
    • Liberty Legal Institute [PDF]
    • Solidarity Center for Law and Justice, P.C. [PDF]
    • State of Alabama et al. [PDF]
    • Wallbuilders, Inc. [PDF]

      Amicus - Respondent:
    • Americans United for Separation of Church and State [PDF]

     

    U.S. Court of Appeals - 10th Circuit, Filed: May 5, 2000

  • , Decided: June 25, 2001

    • 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:

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

       

    • Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
    • Respondent [PDF]
    • Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

      Amicus - Petitioner:
    • Paul Allen Beck et al. [PDF]
    • Common Cause et al. [PDF]
    • Senator John F. Reed et al. [PDF]
    • State of Missouri et al. [PDF]

      Amicus - Respondent:
    • American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [PDF]
    Was this helpful?

    Copied to clipboard