US Supreme Court Docket

January 2001 Monday, January 8

DANIELS v. UNITED STATES
No. 99-9136

Subject:
Armed Career Criminal Act, Sentencing, Sentence Enhancement, Prior State Conviction

Question:

Whether a defendant whose sentence was enhanced under a federal recidivist provision because of his prior state convictions, and whose state convictions have not been set aside by any court, may challenge his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on the claim that the prior state convictions are constitutionally invalid. Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: October 21, 1999
United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 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:

United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Amicus - Respondent:
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [TEXT]

BUFORD v. UNITED STATES
No. 99-9073

Subject:
Sentencing, Career Offender, Related Prior Sentences

Question:

Whether a court of appeals should apply a de novo or deferential standard of review to a district court's determination that a defendant's prior sentences were not "related" because they did not result from offenses that were functionally "consolidated for trial or sentencing," within the meaning of Application Note 3 to Sentencing Guidelines § 4A1.2. Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 7th Circuit, Decided: January 12, 2000
United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 20, 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:

Respondent United States [PDF] [TEXT]

Tuesday, January 9

NGUYEN v. INS
No. 99-2071

Subject:
Citizenship, Illegitimate Children, Fifth Amendment, Gender Discrimination

Question:

Section 1409(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code provides for the conferral of United States citizenship upon a child who is born out of wedlock outside the United States and whose father is a United States citizen. The question in this case is whether certain conditions Congress placed on the conferral of citizenship on such a child under Section 1409(a) violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit, April 1, 2000
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 11, 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
Sex Discrimination at Our Borders? The Supreme Court's Nguyen Case - Part I By Michael C. Dorf.
Sex Discrimination at Our Borders? The Supreme Court's Nguyen Case - Part II By Michael C. Dorf.
Citizen Dad: An International Perspective on the Supreme Court's Nguyen Case By Joanne Mariner.
A Reply to Joanne Mariner's Piece on Nguyen and a Clarification of My Earlier Column By Michael C. Dorf.
A Victory for Motherhood and for Sexism By Joanna Grossman.

Briefs:

Parties:

Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Petitioner [PDF]
Respondent [PDF] [TEXT]

SHAFER v. SOUTH CAROLINA
No. 00-5250

Subject:
Death Penalty, Jury Instruction, Parole Ineligible

Question:
[Question Presented]

Decisions:

Supreme Court of South Carolina, Filed: May 8, 2000
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:

[Coming Soon]
Wednesday, January 10
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. TRI COUNTY INDUS.
No. 99-1953
Subject:
Damages
Question:
[Question Presented]
Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - District of Columbia, Decided: January 18, 2000

U.S. Court of Appeals - District of Columbia, Filed: April 21, 2000 (Order)

U.S. Court of Appeals - District of Columbia, Filed: June 1, 2000 (Order)
United States Supreme Court, Dismissed: January 17, 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:

[Coming Soon]

DEPT. OF INTERIOR v. KLAMATH WATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
No. 99-1871
Subject:
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Inter-Agency/Intra-Agency Exemption, Indian Tribes
Question:
Whether confidential communications between Indian Tribes and the Department of the Interior, in connection with the federal government's performance of its trust responsibility to protect and manage tribal water rights, are "intra-agency" documents that may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5).
Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: August 31, 1999
United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 5, 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 - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Joint Appendix [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Tuesday, January 16
ALEXANDER v. SANDOVAL
No. 99-1908
Subject:
Civil Rights Act, Equal Protection Clause, English-Only Policy, Driver's License Examination, National Origin Discrimination
Question:
In enacting Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under its Spending Clause powers, did Congress authorize individuals to bring private rights of action against States under disparate-impact regulations promulgated by federal agencies?
Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, November 30, 1999
United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 24, 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
The Case That Roared: A Limited "Disparate Impact" Holding that Could Have Larger Repercussions By Edward Lazarus.
Briefs:

Parties:
Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT]
Respondent [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply [PDF]
United States [PDF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Petitioner:
Beauty Enterprises, Inc. [PDF]
Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund [PDF]
National Association of Manufacturers [PDF]
National Collegiate Athletic Association [PDF]
Pacific Legal Foundation et al. (Petition) [WP] [RTF]
Pacific Legal Foundation et al. [PDF] [WP] [RTF]
Pro-English et al. [PDF]
Robert C. Jubelirer et al. [TEXT] [MSWORD]
U.S. English (Petition) [PDF]
U.S. English [PDF]
Washington Legal Foundation et al. [PDF]

Amicus - Respondent:
Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment [PDF]
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., et al. [PDF]
National Women's Law Center et al. [PDF]

SHAW v. MURPHY
No. 99-1613
Subject:
First Amendment, Prison, Legal Assistance
Question:
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that respondent's conduct was protected by a First Amendment right of prison inmates to provide legal assistance to other inmates.
Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: November 4, 1999
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
Why the Government, in a Recent Supreme Court Case, Has Opposed Prisoners' First Amendment Rights by Julie Hilden.
Briefs:

Amicus - Petitioner:
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [TEXT]

Amicus - Respondent:
Legal Aid Society of the City of New York et al. [PDF]

Amicus - Neither Party:
United States - Reversal [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

TEXAS v. COBB
No. 99-1702
Subject:
Sixth Amendment, Right to Counsel, Waiver
Question:
Whether the Sixth Amendment rule announced in Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), which bars an officer from approaching a defendant to interrogate him on a charged offense when he has invoked the right to counsel, also applies to interrogation on a factually related but uncharged offense.
Decisions:

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Filed: March 15, 2000
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, FIled: March 15, 2000 (Dissent)
United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 2, 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
Why the Supreme Court Should Overrule he Massiah Doctrine and Permit Miranda Alone to Govern Interrogations By Sherry F. Colb.
Briefs:

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

Amicus - Petitioner:

Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [TEXT]
United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Wednesday, January 17
PGA TOUR, INC. v. MARTIN
No. 00-24
Subject:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Public Accomodations, Golf Courses
Question:

Whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq., governs job-related standards for persons (here, professional golfers) working at places of public accommodation.

Whether, if so, Title III requires professional sports organizations to grant selective waivers of their substantive rules of athletic competition in order to accommodate disabled competitors.

Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: March 6, 2000
United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 29, 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
Redefining the Status Quo to Include the Disabled By Sherry Colb.
Briefs:

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

Amicus - Petitioner:
ATP Tour, Inc. et al. [PDF]
Equal Employment Advisory Council [PDF]
Kenneth R. Green, II [PDF]
United States Golf Association [PDF] [TEXT] [WP]

Amicus - Respondent:
American Association of Adapted Sports Programs [PDF]
Honorable Robert J. Dole et al. [PDF] [TEXT]
K-T Support Group [PDF]
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
United States [PDF] [TEXT]

MURPHY v. BECK
No. 00-46
Subject:
FDIC, D'Oench, Duhme Doctrine, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enhancement Act of 1989 (FIRREA)
Question:
The federal common-law D'Oench, Duhme doctrine, created and expanded by D'Oench, Duhme & Co., Inc. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447 (1942), and its progeny, generally provides federal banking insurers, receivers, and their successors-in-interest added protections against unrecorded agreements that might form the basis of a claim or defense relating to federally insured banks that have come under the control of federal agents. There is a broad and well-recognized circuit split over whether this federal common-law doctrine is viable in light of this Court's decisions in O'Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994), and Atherton v. FDIC, 519 U.S. 213 (1997).
The question presented in this case is:
Whether the federal common-law D'Oench, Duhme doctrine constitutes a valid bar to petitioner's claims?
Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, April 7, 2000
Resources:

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

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

Petitioner [PDF] [RTF]
Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [RTF]

Amicus - Respondent:
United States et al. [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Response sent, thank you