US Supreme Court Docket
GITLITZ v. COMMISSIONER
No. 99-1295
Subject:
Taxes, Income, Cancellation of Debt
Question:
Petitioners are shareholders in an insolvent Subchapter S corporation which obtained a discharge of indebtedness. Income with respect to this cancellation of debt ("COD") was excluded from gross income under 26 U.S.C. ยง 108(a). The question presented in this case is whether excluded COD income is an item of income within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. ยง 1366(a)(1)(A), which increases Petitioners' basis in their S corporation stock pursuant to 26 U.S.C. ยง 1367.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 10th Circuit, Decided July 6, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 9, 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 - Petition [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioners [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Respondent [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- Real Estate Roundtable [PDF]
EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. v. UNITED MINE WORKERS, DIST. 17
No. 99-1038
Subject:
Arbitration, Judicial Review, Drug Testing, Transportation
Question:
Whether the arbitrator's award in this case, which ordered reinstatement (after a three-month suspension) of a
commercial truck driver who had twice tested positive for marijuana, should be set aside as contrary to public
policy.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 4th Circuit, Filed: August 20, 1999 (Unpublished)
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: November 28, 2000
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] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- Air Transport Association [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Equal Employment Advisory Council [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Exxon Mobil Corporation [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Other:
- United States - Affirmance [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS v. EDMOND
No. 99-1030
Subject:
Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, Automobile Checkpoints
Question:
Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a narcotics-detection dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 7th Circuit, Decided: July 7, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: November 28, 2000
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]
- Respondents [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- Kansas et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- National League of Cities et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Washington Legal Foundation et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Amicus - Respondent:
- National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Rutherford Institute [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Other:
- Americans for Effective Law Enforcement et al. - Reversal [PDF] [HTML]
GREEN TREE FIN. CORP. v. RANDOLPH
No. 99-1235
Subject:
Federal Arbitration Act, Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Question:
- Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that an order compelling arbitration and dismissing a lawsuit's underlying claims is a "final decision with respect to an arbitration" appealable under 9 U.S.C. ยง 16(a)(3).
- Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that an arbitration provision that was "silent" on the issue of costs and fees was unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because the risk that plaintiff "might" be required to bear unknown costs and fees potentially undermined her ability to vindicate statutory rights.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: June 22, 1999
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: July 2, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: December 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
Briefs:
-
Parties:
- Petitioner [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Respondent [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- Equal Employment Advisory Council [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- American Bankers Association et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Chamber of Commerce [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Respondent:
- AARP et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Consumers Union of U.S. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- National Association of Consumer Advocates [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Trial Lawyers for Public Justice et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Other:
- Alabama Manufactured Housing Institute - Reversal [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- American Arbitration Association - Reversal on Question 2 [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- National Arbitration Forum - Neither Party [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
FERGUSON v. CITY OF CHARLESTON
No. 99-936
Subject:
Fourth Amendment, Drug Testing, Warrantless Searches, Pregnant Women
Question:
Whether the testing of pregnant women for cocaine usage, and the subsequent reporting of the results to law enforcement constitutes an unconstitutional search or invasion of privacy in violation of the 4th Amendment.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 4th Circuit, Filed: July 13, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 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
- Sherry Colb: Drug-Testing Pregnant Women is Both Counterproductive and Unconstitutional From FindLaw Commentary.
Briefs:
-
Parties:
- Respondent [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- American Civil Liberties Union et al. [PDF] [TEXT]
- Naral Foundation et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- American Public Health Association et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Other:
- American Medical Association - Reversal [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
LEGAL SERVICES CORP. v. VELAZQUEZ
UNITED STATES v. VELAZQUEZ
Nos. 99-603, 99-960
Subject:
First Amendment, Free Speech, Legal Services Corporation, Federal Funds, Welfare Reform
Question:
The question presented is whether the statutory provision permitting recipients of LSC funds to represent individuals seeking relief from a welfare agency only if the relief sought would not amend or change existing law is facially invalid under the First Amendment.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Filed: January 7, 1999
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit (Dissent)
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 28, 2001
Resources:
- Docket Sheet (99-603) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Docket Sheet (99-960) 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 - Petition [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- United States - Petition (Reply) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Respondent [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- United States - Reply [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner Legal Services - Reply [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Respondent:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [TEXT]
- American Judicature Society [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- New York State Bar Association et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
CLEVELAND v. UNITED STATES
No. 99-804
Subject:
Mail Fraud, Video Poker License, Property
Question:
Whether the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1341, reaches a scheme to obtain a video poker license
from the State of Louisiana by means of false representations.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit, Revised: August 5, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: November 7, 2000
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 - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Amicus - Petitioner
- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [TEXT] [RTF]
ARTUZ, SUPT., GREEN HAVEN v. BENNETT
No. 99-1238
Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Tolling Provision
Question:
Is a state post-conviction application "properly filed" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d)(2), which tolls the one-year statute of limitations for habeas corpus petitions, if it is procedurally barred from review under state law?
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Filed: October 25, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: November 7, 2000
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]
- Respondent [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- State of Florida et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
UNIV. OF AL BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. GARRETT
No. 99-1240
Subject:
Eleventh Amendment, Sovereign Immunity, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Question:
Do Title I and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 12101 et seq., exceed Congress's enforcement authority under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: October 26, 1999
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: November 5, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 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
- The Supreme Court's Garret Decision, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Bush v. Gore By Marci Hamilton.
- Why the Supreme Court Truly Matters Today by Marci Hamilton.
Briefs:
-
Parties:
- United States - Response (Partial Acquiescence)(Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Respondent [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner: - Coalition for Local Sovereignty [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [TEXT]
- State of Hawaii et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Pacific Legal Foundation [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Respondent: - Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. [TEXT]
- National Council on Disability [PDF] [TEXT] [WP]
BRENTWOOD ACADEMY v. TN SECONDARY SCHOOL
No. 99-901
Subject:
First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, State Action, Civil Rights, School Sports
Question:
Whether an athletic association's regulation of interscholastic athletic competition constitutes state
action under the Fourteenth Amendment and activity under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C.
1983 (1994 & Supp. III 1997), when the association is controlled by representatives of public schools
located in the same State.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: June 21, 1999
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: August 30, 1999 (Rehearing Denied)
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 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:
- Petitioner [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Respondent [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply Brief [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- National Voting Rights Institute [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- National Women's Law Center et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Southeast Law Institute [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Tennessee Lawyers' Association [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Amicus - Respondent:
- Kentucky High School Athletic Association [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Florida High School Activities Association, Inc. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Subject:
Early Release, Voluntary Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program, Discretion
Question:
Whether the Bureau of Prisons may exercise its discretion under 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(2)(B) to deny eligibility for early release from custody, based on the successful completion of a substance abuse treatment program, to the category of prisoners whose current offense is a felony that "involved the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm." 28 C.F.R. 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B).
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 8th Circuit, Filed: August 10, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 10, 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:
CENTRAL GREEN v. UNITED STATES
No. 99-859
Subject:
Jurisdiction, Federal Tort Claims Act, Flooding
Question:
Whether 33 U.S.C. 702c, which provides that "[n]o liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the
United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place," bars petitioner's tort action
arising from property damage sustained as a result of allegedly negligent construction and maintenance of
an irrigation canal that is part of a multi-purpose federal flood control project.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: May 20, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 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:
-
Parties:
- United States - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- United States - Supplemental (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
SOLID WASTE AGENCY v. U.S. ARMY CORP. ENGINEERS
No. 99-1178
Subject:
Clean Water Act, Commerce Clause
Question:
Whether the United States Army Corps of Engineers may, consistent with the Clean Water Act and the Commerce Clause, exercise
regulatory jurisdiction over a series of permanent and seasonal ponds and small lakes that are used as habitat for numerous
species of migratory birds.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 7th Circuit, Filed: October 7, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 9, 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
- One for the Birds: The Corps of Engineers' "Migratory Bird Rule" By Timothy S. Bishop, Kyle F. Waldinger, and Elizabeth A. Clark of Mayer Brown & Platt.
Briefs:
-
Parties:
- Petitioner - Petition [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner - Reply Brief [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Respondent [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner: - Cato Institute [PDF]
- Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America [PDF]
- The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence [PDF] [RTF] [WP]
- Defenders of Property Rights [TEXT]
Amicus - Respondent: - Anti-Defamation League et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Dr. Gene Likens et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Environmental Defense et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- State of California et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Subject:
Fifth Amendment, Sexually Violent Predator Statute, Double Jeopardy, Ex Post Facto
Question:
In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), this Court held that the Kansas law authorizing commitment of sexually violent predators is civil in nature and does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. The Kansas law was modeled on Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute and the two laws are substantially similar. This case presents the following question regarding Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute:
Whether an otherwise valid civil statute can be divested of its civil nature and held to violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses because the administrative agency operating the commitment facility fails to provide for treatment and other conditions of confinement mandated by statute at some time during the individual's commitment.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: May 20, 1999
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: September 16, 1999 (Amended)
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: 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:
-
Parties:
- Petitioner [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Respondent [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
Amicus - Respondent:
- Amicus: CA Atascadero State Hospital Sec. 6600 Civil Committees [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
- Amicus: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]