US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled
April 2003 [Download April 1-2, 2003 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Download April 21-30, 2003 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2001 Docket]

Note: Briefs available on this page may not match originals in format and appearance

Tuesday, April 1

Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger, et al.
No. 02-241

Subject:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Question:

Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. § 1981?
Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are "constitutional"?

Decisions:

United States District Court - Eastern District of Michigan, Filed March 27, 2001
U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: May 14, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 2, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 23, 2003

Judicial Misconduct Proceedings:

Judicial Watch Complaint of Judicial Misconduct [TEXT]
U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Order and Memorandum Opinion, Filed: May 28, 2003 [PDF]

Resources:

Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Audio of Oral Arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court [MP3 Streaming Audio] [MP3 Download]
Audio, transcript, and photo of speaker during Oral Arguments, from the Oyez Project [Real Audio]
Oral Argument Transcript
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
Respondents Lee Bollinger, Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, et al. - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
Respondents Kimberly James, et al. - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Respondents Lee Bollinger, Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Respondents Kimberly James, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioner
Center for Equal Opportunity, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Petition) [PDF]
Pacific Legal Foundation (Petition) [PDF]
States of Alabama, Delaware, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
Asian American Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
Cato Institute (Merits) [PDF]
Center for the Advancement of Capitalism (Merits) [PDF]
Center for Equal Opportunity, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Center for Individual Freedom (Merits) [PDF]
Center for New Black Leadership (Merits) [PDF]
Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Merits) [PDF]
Ward Connerly (Merits) [PDF]
Law Professors Larry Alexander, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Michigan Association of Scholars (Merits) [PDF]
National Association of Scholars (Merits) [PDF]
Pacific Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
Reason Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
State of Florida and Governor Bush (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Amicus - Respondents
65 Leading American Businesses (Merits) [PDF]
13,922 Current Law Students at Accredited American Law Schools (Merits) [PDF]
American Bar Association (Merits) [PDF]
American Educational Research Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) (Merits) [PDF]
American Jewish Committee, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
American Law Deans Association (Merits) [PDF]
American Psychological Association (Merits) [PDF]
American Sociological Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Amherst College and 27 Fellow Private Colleges and Universities (Merits) [PDF]
Arizona State University College of Law (Merits) [PDF]
Association of American Law Schools (Merits) [PDF]
Association of American Medical Colleges, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Bay Mills Indian Community, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Black Women Lawyers Association of Greater Chicago, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
Boston Bar Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Hillary Browne, Students of Howard University School of Law, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Carnegie Mellon University and 37 Fellow Private Colleges and Universities (Merits) [PDF]
Cities of Philadelphia and Cleveland, and National Conf. of Black Mayors (Merits) [PDF]
Clinical Legal Education Association (Merits) [PDF]
Coalition for Economic Equity, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Committee of Concerned Black Graduates of ABA Accredited Law Schools (Merits) [PDF]
Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, Rice, and Vanderbilt Universities (Merits) [PDF]
Representatives Conyers, Dingell, Rangel, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Clinton, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
General Motors Corp. (Merits) [PDF]
Representative Richard A. Gephardt, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Graduate Management Admission Council, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Harvard, Stanford, and Yale Black Law Students Associations (Merits) [PDF]
Harvard University, Brown University, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
The Hayden Family (Merits) [PDF]
Hispanic Nat'l Bar Assn and the Hispanic Assn of Colleges and Universities (Merits) [PDF]
Howard University (Merits) [PDF]
Human Rights Advocates and the University of Minnesota Human Rights Center (Merits) [PDF]
Indiana University (Merits) [PDF]
King County Bar Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Latino Organizations (Merits) [PDF]
Law School Admission Council (Merits) [PDF]
Law School Deans Judith Areen, Katharine Bartlett, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (Merits) [PDF]
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, Du Pont, IBM, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Media Companies (Merits) [PDF]
Members and Former Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Michigan Black Law Alumni Society (Merits) [PDF]
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (Merits) [PDF]
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., and ACLU (Merits) [PDF]
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
National Center for Fair & Open Testing (Merits) [PDF]
National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, et al. (NCOBRA) (Merits) [PDF]
National Education Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
National School Boards Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
National Urban League, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
The New America Alliance (Merits) [PDF]
New Mexico Hispanic Bar Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
New York State Black & Puerto Rican Legislative Caucus (Merits) [PDF]
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
School of Law of the University of North Carolina (Merits) [PDF]
Social Scientists Glenn C. Loury, Nathan Glazer, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Society of American Law Teachers (Merits) [PDF]
States of Maryland, New York, Arizona, California, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
State of New Jersey (Merits) [PDF]
United Negro College Fund and Alpha Kappa Psi (Merits) [PDF]
UCLA School of Law Students of Color (Merits) [PDF]
University of Michigan Law Student Associations (Merits) [PDF]
University of Pittsburgh, Temple University, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Veterans of the Southern Civil Rights Movement, et al. Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Neither Party
Anti-Defamation League (Merits) [PDF]
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
Equal Employment Advisory Council (Merits) [PDF]
Massachusetts School of Law (Merits) [PDF]

Jennifer Gratz, et al. v. Lee Bollinger, et al.
No. 02-516

Subject:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Question:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Decisions:

U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Michigan, Opinion, Filed: February 26, 2001
U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Michigan, Order, Filed: February 26, 2001
U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Order affirming stay of injunction, Filed: November 16, 2001
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Before Judgment Granted: December 2, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 23, 2003

Resources:

Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Audio of Oral Arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court [MP3 Streaming Audio] [MP3 Download] [Real Audio]
Oral Argument Transcript
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties:

Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
Respondents Lee Bollinger, Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, et al. - Conditional Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
Respondents Lee Bollinger, Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Respondents Ebony Patterson, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Petitioner
Asian American Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
Cato Institute (Merits) [PDF]
Center for the Advancement of Capitalism (Merits) [PDF]
Center for Equal Opportunity, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Center for Individual Freedom (Merits) [PDF]
Center for New Black Leadership (Merits) [PDF]
Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Merits) [PDF]
Ward Connerly (Merits) [PDF]
Duane C. Ellison (Merits) [PDF]
Michigan Association of Scholars (Merits) [PDF]
National Association of Scholars (Merits) [PDF]
Pacific Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
Reason Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
State of Florida and Governor Bush (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Amicus - Respondents
65 Leading American Businesses (Merits) [PDF]
American Council on Education, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
American Educational Research Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) (Merits) [PDF]
American Jewish Committee, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
American Psychological Association (Merits) [PDF]
Amherst College and 27 Fellow Private Colleges and Universities (Merits) [PDF]
Authors of the Texas Ten Percent Plan (Merits) [PDF]
Bay Mills Indian Community, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Black Women Lawyers Association of Greater Chicago, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
Carnegie Mellon University and 37 Fellow Private Colleges and Universities (Merits) [PDF]
Cities of Philadelphia and Cleveland, and National Conf. of Black Mayors (Merits) [PDF]
The College Board (Merits) [PDF]
Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, Rice, and Vanderbilt Universities (Merits) [PDF]
Representatives Conyers, Dingell, Rangel, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Clinton, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
General Motors Corp. (Merits) [PDF]
Representative Richard A. Gephardt, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Harvard University, Brown University, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
The Hayden Family (Merits) [PDF]
Howard University (Merits) [PDF]
Human Rights Advocates and the University of Minnesota Human Rights Center (Merits) [PDF]
Latino Organizations (Merits) [PDF]
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (Merits) [PDF]
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, Du Pont, IBM, et al. erits) [PDF]
Media Companies (Merits) [PDF]
Members of the United States Congress (Merits) [PDF]
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (Merits) [PDF]
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, et al. (NCOBRA) (Merits) [PDF]
National Education Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
National School Boards Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
National Urban League, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
The New America Alliance (Merits) [PDF]
New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Northeastern University (Merits) [PDF]
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Social Scientists Glenn C. Loury, Nathan Glazer, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
States of Maryland, New York, Arizona, California, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
State of New Jersey (Merits) [PDF]
United Negro College Fund and Alpha Kappa Psi (Merits) [PDF]
University of Pittsburgh, Temple University, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Neither Party
Anti-Defamation League (Merits) [PDF]
Equal Employment Advisory Council (Merits) [PDF]

Wednesday, April 2

Phillip T. Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard
No. 02-337

Subject:

Fair Labor Standards Act

Question:

Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act ["FLSA"] of 1938, can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be "maintained" in state court.
Whether the 11th Circuit's interpretation of the word "maintained" as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with the Supreme Court's pronounced definition of the word "maintain" to be used when construing federal statutes.

Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: June 5, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 10, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 19, 2003

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF](Warning: Large File 41mb)

Amicus - Respondent
Academy of Florida Management Attorneys, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
Human Resource Association of Palm Beach County, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
No. 02-428

Subject:

Lanham Act

15 U.S.C. 1117(a)

15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)

Question:

Does the Lanham Act protect creative works from uncredited copying, even without a likelihood of consumer confusion?
May a court applying the Lanham Act award twice the defendant's profits for purely deterrent purposes?

Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: April 19, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 10, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 2, 2002

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioner
American Library Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Professor Malla Pollack (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Respondents
Association for Competitive Technology, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Neither Party
American Intellectual Property Law Association (Merits) [PDF]
International Trademark Assocation (Merits) [PDF]

Monday, April 21

Janette Price, Warden v. Duyonn A. Vincent
No. 02-524

Subject:

Habeas Corpus, Double Jeopardy, Fifth Amendment, Criminal Law Question:

Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's conclusion that the trial court did not direct a verdict of acquittal is a factual finding entitled to deference on habeas corpus review.
Whether defendant Vincent was twice placed in jeopardy by the action of the trial court in first granting a motion for directed verdict on the issue of first degree murder, and shortly thereafter withdrawing its grant, where both the initial decision and its recall occurred out of the presence of the jury.
Whether this Court should grant certiorari to clarify the jurisprudence where there is a split of opinion within the United States Courts of Appeals and within the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and State Courts on the question of whether double jeopardy principles were violated in factually similar situations.

Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: June 6, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 10, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 19, 2003

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioner
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
States of Texas, Alabama, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Wayne County, Michigan, Prosecuting Attorney (Merits) [PDF]

Desert Palace, Inc., dba Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino v. Catharina F. Costa
No. 02-679

Subject:

Title VII

Question:

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: August 2, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 10, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 9, 2003

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Joint Appendix (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioner
Equal Employment Advisory Council (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Respondent
Association of Trial Lawyers of America (Merits) [PDF]

Tuesday, April 22

Green Tree Financial Corp., nka Conseco Finance Corp., v. Lynn W. Bazzle, et al.
No. 02-634

Subject:

Federal Arbitration Act

Question:

Federal Arbitration Act

et seq.

Decisions:

Supreme Court of South Carolina, Filed: August 26, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 10, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 23, 2003

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioner
American Bankers Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Chamber of Commerce of the United States (Merits) [PDF]
DirecTV (Merits) [PDF]
Equal Employment Advisory Council (Merits) [PDF]
New England Legal Foundation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Washington Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Respondents
AARP (Merits) [PDF]
Law Professors (Merits) [PDF]
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (Merits) [PDF]

Hillside Dairy, et al. v. William J. Lyons, Jr., California Dept. Food and Agric., et al.
No. 01-950

Ponderosa Dairy, et al. v. William J. Lyons, Jr., California Dept. Food and Agric., et al.
No. 01-1018

Subject:

Commerce Clause, Priviliges and Immunities Clause, 7 U.S.C. 7254 Question:

Whether 7 U.S.C. 7254 exempts California's milk pricing and pooling regulations from scrutiny under the Commerce Clause.
Whether California's milk pricing and pooling regulations violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: August 9, 2001
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 10, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 9, 2003

Resources:

Docket Sheet (No. 01-950) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Docket Sheet (No. 01-1018) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Oral Argument Transcript
Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioners Hillside Dairy, Inc., et al. (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners Hillside Dairy, Inc., et al. - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners - Supplemental Response to United States' Amicus Brief (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Joint Appendix (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioners
Dairy Institute of California (Petition) [PDF]
State of Nevada, Nevada State Dairy Commsn. (Petition) [PDF]
Dairy Institute of California (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Select Milk Producers, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
States of Nevada, Minnesota, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Respondents
United States (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Wednesday, April 23

American Insurance Assn., et al. v. John Garamendi, Commissioner of Insurance, State of California
No. 02-722

Subject:

McCarran-Ferguson Act

California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act of 1999

Question:

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in refusing to apply the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968), to a California law directed at the foreign activities of European insurance companies, which has been declared by the federal government to be "in direct conflict" with "United States foreign policy" and which has generated strong protests from affected foreign nations.
Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, authorizes California to regulate overseas activities of insurance companies having no connection with the State.

Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Amended Opinion Filed: September 9, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 10, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 23, 2003

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Respondent - Supplemental Brief in response to United States as Amicus Curiae (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
Respondents Gerling Companies - Supporting Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Respondents Gerling Companies - Reply - Supporting Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
Joint Appendix (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioner
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
United States (Petition) [PDF]
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Federal Republic of Germany (Merits) [PDF]
Government of Switzerland (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Respondent
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (Merits) [PDF]
Representative Henry A. Waxman and 51 Other Members of Congress (Merits) [PDF]
States of California, Alabama, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Nike, Inc., et al. v. Marc Kasky
No. 02-575

Subject:

First Amendment, Commercial Speech Question:

When a corporation participates in a public debate writing letters to newspaper editors and to educators and publishing communications addressed to the general public on issues of great political, social, and economic importance may it be subjected to liability for factual inaccuracies on the theory that its statements are "commercial speech" because they might affect consumers' opinions about the business as a good corporate citizen and thereby affect their purchasing decisions?
Even assuming the California Supreme Court properly characterized such statements as "commercial speech," does the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, permit subjecting speakers to the legal regime approved by that court in the decision below?

Decisions:

Supreme Court of California, As Modified: May 22, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 10, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Dismissed as Improvidently Granted: June 26, 2003 [Concurring and Dissenting Opinions]

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioners
Center for the Advancement of Capitalism (Petition) [PDF]
Center for Individual Freedom (Petition) [PDF]
Chamber of Commerce of the United States (Petition) [PDF]
Civil Justice Association of California (Petition) [PDF]
Council of Public Relations Firms, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
ExxonMobil, Bank of America, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
Pacific Legal Foundation (Petition) [PDF]
Thirty-Two Leading Newspapers, Magazines, etc., et al. (Petition) [PDF]
Washington Legal Foundation (Petition) [PDF]
American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Northern California (Merits) [PDF]
Arthur W. Page Society, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Association of National Advertising, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Business Roundtable (Merits) [PDF]
Center for the Advancement of Capitalism (Merits) [PDF]
Center for Individual Freedom (Merits) [PDF]
Chamber of Commerce of the United States (Merits) [PDF]
Civil Justice Association of California (Merits) [PDF]
Defenders of Property Rights, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
ExxonMobil, Microsoft, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Forty Leading Newspapers, Magazines, Broadcasters, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression (Merits) [PDF]
Mountain States Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
National Association of Manufacturers (Merits) [PDF]
Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Pfizer Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
SRiMedia and CoreRatings (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Washington Legal Foundation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Respondent
Campaign Legal Center (Merits) [PDF]
Congressmembers Kucinich, Sanders, Brown, and Filner (Merits) [PDF]
Consumer Attorneys of California (Merits) [PDF]
Domini Social Investments LLC, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
National Association of Consumer Advocates (Merits) [PDF]
Public Citizen (Merits) [PDF]
ReclaimDemocracy.org (Merits) [PDF]
Sierra Club, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
States of California, Alaska, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Neither Party
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) (Merits) [PDF]

Monday, April 28

The Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Kenneth L. Nord
No. 02-469

Subject:

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),

Question:

Whether the administrator of an ERISA-covered disability plan must follow a "treating physician rule" in determining a participant's disability, so that the administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion on disability unless the administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence in the record. Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: July 15, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 10, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 27, 2003

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioner
American Benefits Council (Merits) [PDF]
American Council of Life Insurers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan (Merits) [PDF]
Central States, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Delta Family-Care Disabilty and Survivorship Plan, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Erisa Industry Committee (Merits) [PDF]
National Association of Manufacturers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Peabody Energy Corporation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Respondent
AARP (Merits) [PDF]
American Medical Association (Merits) [PDF]
National Employment Lawyers Association (Merits) [PDF]
National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives (Merits) [PDF]

Entergy Louisiana, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Serv. Comm.
No. 02-299

Subject:

Public Utilities, Federalism Question:

Mississippi Power & Light v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore

Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg

Decisions:

Supreme Court of Louisiana, Filed: April 3, 2002
Supreme Court of Louisiana, Dissent Filed: April 3, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 17, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 2, 2002

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioner
United States (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Edison Electric Institute (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Tuesday, April 29

Georgia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., et al.
No. 02-182

Subject:

Voting Rights Act

Question:

Whether section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires the drawing of safe majority-minority districts with super majority-minority populations rather than districts that afford minorities equal opportunities at success.
Whether section 5 can be constitutionally construed to require the drawing of supermajority-minority legislative districts in order to create safe seats rather than seats that afford minorities equal opportunities at success.
Whether private parties should be allowed to intervene in a section 5 preclearance action and assume the role and authority of the Attorney General.

Decisions:

U.S. District Court - District of Columbia, Filed: June 3, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Probable Jurisdiction Noted: January 17, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 26, 2003

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Appellant State of Georgia (Jurisdictional Statement) [PDF]
Appellees John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. - Response (Motion to Affirm) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Appellee Intervenors Patrick Jones, et al. - Response (Motion to Affirm) [PDF]
Appellant State of Georgia (Merits) [PDF]
Appellees John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
Appellee Intervenors Patrick Jones, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Appellant State of Georgia - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Appellees
Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda (Merits) [PDF]

Michael Fitzgerald, Treasurer of Iowa v. Racing Assoc. of Central Iowa
No. 02-695

Subject:

Taxation, Gaming, Equal Protection Question:

May the State of Iowa, without violating the Equal Protection Clause, tax the revenue from slot machines at racetracks at different rates than the revenue from all casino games, including slot machines, on riverboats? Decisions:

Supreme Court of Iowa, Filed: June 12, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 17, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 9, 2003

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Respondents (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioner
Iowa Cities of Bettendorf, Burlington, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Respondents
City of Dubuque, Iowa (Merits) [PDF]
Institute for Justice (Merits) [PDF]
Polk County, Iowa (Merits) [PDF]

Wednesday, April 30

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kevin Lamont Hicks
No. 02-371

Subject:

First Amendment, Civil Rights Question:

Whether a criminal defendant may invoke the overbreadth doctrine even though (a) his own offense did not involve any expressive conduct, and (b) his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the government statute, regulation or policy he challenges as overbroad.
Whether the Constitution recognizes a distinction between actions taken by government as landlord and actions taken by government as sovereign.

Decisions:

Supreme Court of Virginia, Filed: June 7, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 24, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 16, 2003

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Joint Appendix (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus - Petitioner
Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Respondent
American Civil Liberties Union, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Beneficial National Bank, et al. v. Marie Anderson, et al.
No. 02-306

Subject:

Federalism, Preemption, Banking Law Question:

Whether a usury claim against a national bank, even if ostensibly brought under state law, necessarily arises under section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 85-86, so as to permit a federal court to exercise removal jurisdiction under the doctrine of complete preemption. Decisions:

U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: April 3, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 24, 2003
United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 2, 2002

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties

Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Amicus -Petitioners
United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Amicus - Respondents
AARP, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Consumer Attorneys of California (Merits) [PDF]

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled

To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other