US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled
December 2002 [Download December 2002 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2001 Docket] Monday, December 2

United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe
No. 01-1067

Subject:

Native Americans, Money Damages, Breach of Trust

Question:

In 1960, Congress declared that a former military post in Arizona would "be held by the United States in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe, subject to the right of the Secretary of the Interior to use any part of the land and improvements for administrative or school purposes for as long as they are needed for that purpose." Act of Mar. 18, 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-392, 74 Stat. 8. The question presented is whether that Act authorizes the award of money damages against the United States for alleged breach of trust in connection with such property.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit, Decided: May 16, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 22, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Order: August 26, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 4, 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] [RTF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Petition)[PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

United States v. Navajo Nation
No. 01-1375

Subject:

Native Americans, Money Damages, Breach of Trust

Question:

Whether the court of appeals properly held that the United States is liable to the Navajo Nation for up to $600 million in damages for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Secretary's actions concerning an Indian mineral lease, without finding that the Secretary had violated any specific statutory or regulatory duty established pursuant to the IMLA.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit, Filed: August 10, 2001 (Errata, Sept. 4, 2001)
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 3, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 4, 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] [RTF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Petition)[PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Joint Appendix I (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Joint Appendix II (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Tuesday, December 3

David Meyer, et al. v. Emma Mary Holley, et al.
No. 01-1120

Subject:

Fair Housing Act of 1968, Racial Discrimination, Vicarious Liability

Question:

Did the Ninth Circuit properly conclude that criteria under the Fair Housing Act permit owners and officers of corporations to be absolutely liable for an employee's or agent's violation of the act, whether or not they personally directed, authorized, or were even aware of the particular discriminatory acts that occurred?

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: July 31, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 20, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 22, 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 (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., et al. v. Guardianship of Keffeler, et al.
No. 01-1420

Subject:

Social Security, Anti-Alienation, States

Question:

Whether a state agency, acting as the representative payee for a foster child who is receiving Social Security benefits, violates the Social Security Act's anti-alienation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 407(a), when it uses those benefit payments to pay for the child's current needs and maintenance.

Decisions:

• Supreme Court of Washington, Filed: October 11, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 28, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 25, 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] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Wednesday, December 4

Joseph Scheidler, Andrew Scholberg, Timothy Murphy, and The Pro-Life Action League, Inc. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.
No. 01-1118

Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.
No. 01-1119

Subject:

Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Hobbs Act, Abortion Clinics, Protests, Injunctive Relief

Question:

1. Whether the Seventh Circuit correctly held, in acknowledged conflict with the Ninth Circuit, that injunctive relief is available in a private civil action for treble damages brought under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
   
   
2. Whether the Hobbs Act, which makes it a crime to obstruct, delay, or affect interstate commerce by robbery or extortion and which defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another, with [the owner s] consent, where such consent is induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear (18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) (emphasis added)) criminalizes the activities of political protesters who engage in sit-ins and demonstrations that obstruct the public s access to a business s premises and interfere with the freedom of putative customers to obtain services offered there.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 7th Circuit, Filed: July 31, 2000
• U.S. District Court - Northern District of Illinois, Order Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment, Filed: March 28, 2001
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 7th Circuit, Filed: October 2, 2001
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 7th Circuit, Order: October 12, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 22, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Order: August 26, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 26, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet (No. 01-1118) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Docket Sheet (No. 01-1119) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioner Scheidler, et al. (No. 01-1118) (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioner Scheidler, et al. - Reply (No. 01-1118) (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioner Operation Rescue (No. 01-1119) (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioner Scheidler, et al. (No. 01-1118) (Merits) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioner Operation Rescue (01-1119) (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• Concerned Women for America (Merits) [PDF]
• Life Legal Defense Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Merits) [PDF] [WP]
• States of Alabama, Nebraska, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• NARAL Foundation®/NARAL®, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Ben Chavez v. Oliverio Martinez
No. 01-1444

Subject:

Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fifth Amendment, Qualified Immunity

Question:

1. Was the Ninth Circuit correct in characterizing the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and ignoring its holding favorable to a civil rights defendant?
   
   
2. Does a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occur at the time of the purported coercive interview or only when and if the state introduces the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding?
   
   
3. Was the Ninth Circuit correct in holding that the conduct of the investigating officer in this case was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity?

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit [PDF], Filed: October 30, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 3, 2002
• 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 (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• California Cities (Merits) [PDF]
• City of Escondido, California (Merits) [PDF]
• Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus Respondent
• American Civil Liberties Union (Merits) [PDF]
• National Police Accountability Project of the National Lawyers Guild (Merits) [PDF]

Monday, December 9

Boeing Co., et al. v. United States
No. 01-1209

United States v. Boeing Sales Corp., et al.
No. 01-1382

Subject:

Corporate Tax, Domestic International Sales Corporations, Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §§ 991-997)

Question:

1. Whether, in computing their combined taxable income from the export sales of aircraft during the period from 1979-1984 under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code pertaining to "domestic international sales corporations" (26 U.S.C. §§ 991-997 (1976 & Supp. III 1979)), petitioners must take into account expenses incurred for aircraft research and development in the manner required by the then applicable Treasury regulations.



2. Whether, in computing their combined taxable income from the export sales of aircraft during the period from 1985-1987 under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code pertaining to "foreign sales corporations" (26 U.S.C §§. 921-927 (1988)), petitioners must take into account expenses incurred for aircraft research and development in the manner required by the then-applicable Treasury regulations.

Decisions:

• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 28, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Order: August 26, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 4, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet (No. 01-1209) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Docket Sheet (No. 01-1382) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioners Boeing Co., et al. (Petition) (No. 01-1209) [PDF]
• Respondent United States - Opposition (Petition) (No. 01-1209) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Petitioners Boeing Co., et al. - Reply (Petition) (No. 01-1209) [PDF]
  
  
• Cross-Petitioner United States (No. 01-1382) (Conditional Cross-Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• Petitioners Boeing Co., et al. (Merits) (No. 01-1209) [PDF]
• Respondent and Cross-Petitioner United States (Merits) (Nos. 01-1209 and 01-1382) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Petitioners Boeing Co., et al. - Reply (Merits) (No. 01-1209) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• Tax Executives Institute (Merits) PDF]

Allen D. Brown, et al. v. Legal Foundation of Washington, et al.
No. 01-1325

Subject:

Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA), Fifth Amendment, Takings

Question:

1. Whether the regulatory scheme for funding state legal services by systematically seizing this property violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution so that the property owners are entitled to relief.

2. Whether injunctive relief is available to enjoin a State from committing such a violation of the Takings Clause, where the legislative scheme in issue clearly contemplates that no compensation would be paid to the owners of the interest taken, and where the small amount due in any individual case often renders recovery through litigation impractical.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit , Filed: January 10, 2001
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Rehearing En Banc [PDF], Filed: November 14, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 10, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 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
• Petitioners Washington Legal Foundation, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
• Respondents Legal Foundation of Washington, et al. - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Respondent Justices of the Washington Supreme Court - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  
• Petitioner Washington Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondents Legal Foundation of Washington, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondent Justices of the Washington Supreme Court (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Petitioners Washington Legal Foundation, et al. - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, et al. (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• AARP, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• American Bar Association (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Conference of Chief Justices (Merits) [PDF]
• National League of Cities, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• City and County of San Francisco (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
• Forty-nine State Bar Associations, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• States of California, Massachusetts, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Justices of the Texas Supreme Court, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]

Tuesday, December 10

Branch, et al. v. Smith, et al.
No. 01-1437

Smith, et al. v. Branch, et al.
No. 01-1596

Subject:

Congressional redistricting, reapportionment

Question:

1. Does Article I, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution deprive state courts of general jurisdiction of all power in congressional redistricting cases in the many states where no state statute explicitly speaks of such power?
   
   
2. If a state court, in the course of adhering to developments in the law, assumes jurisdiction and hears a type of voting rights case it has never heard before, does it thereby "enact or seek to administer [a] voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different form [sic] that in force and effect on November 1, 1964," as stated in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 4 U.S.C. § 1973c), such that the mere assumption of jurisdiction (independent of any remedial order) must be precleared by the U.S. Attorney General or the federal district court for the District of Columbia under Section 5?
   
   
3. Under Section 5, when a redistricting plan adopted by state authorities has "been submitted" to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, may a federal district court nevertheless prevent enforcement and extend the statutory 60-day review period on the basis of the Attorney General's request for additional information if the information sought is unnecessary and irrelevant to the Section 5 retrogression evaluation?
   
   
4. Whether, as its plain language declares, U.S.C. 2a(5) [sic] requires a state whose representation in Congress has been reduced after a census to elect its Representatives "from the State at large"..."[u]ntil a state is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof."

Decisions:

• Three-Judge Panel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Smith v. Clark, 189 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D. Miss. 2002)), Filed: February 2, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Probable Jurisdiction Noted: June 10, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 31, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet (Case No. 01-1437) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Docket Sheet (Case No. 01-1596) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Appellees Smith, et al. (Merits) (No. 01-1437) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Appellees Smith, et al. (No. 01-1437)
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus - Cross-Appellees Branch, et al. (No. 01-1596)
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Borden Ranch Partnership, et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
No. 01-1243

Subject:

Clean Water Act, Deep Ripping, Civil Penalties

Question:

1. Whether deep ripping, an activity that disgorges and redeposits soil in wetlands and waters of the United States to convert those areas to dry land, may result in a discharge of a pollutant for purposes of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq.

2. Whether petitioners' deep ripping of a wetland qualified for the conditional exemption from regulation under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f).

3. Whether each violation of the Clean Water Act should be counted in determining the maximum civil penalty under Section 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d).

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit [PDF], Filed: August 15, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 10, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Order: August 26, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Affirmed: December 16, 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]
• Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• Petitioners (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• California Farm Bureau Federation, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• American Forest & Paper Association (Merits) [PDF]
• California Farm Bureau Federation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• National Association of Home Builders (Merits) [PDF]
• National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF]
• Save Our Shoreline (Merits) [PDF]
• States of Alabama, Alaska, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• Association of State Wetlands Managers (Merits) [PDF]
• National Wildlife Federation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• States of New Jersey, Hawaii, and West Virginia (Merits) [PDF]
• Dr. Joy Zedler, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Wednesday, December 11

Virginia v. Barry E. Black, et al.
No. 01-1107

Subject:

First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Cross Burning, Hate Crimes

Question:

Does the Virginia statute that bans cross burning with intent to intimidate violate the First Amendment, even thought the statute reaches all such intimidation and is not limited to any racial, religious or other content-focused category?

Decisions:

• Supreme Court of Virginia, Filed: November 2, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 28, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 7, 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 - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]
• Respondents (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
• State of California (Merits) [PDF]
• States of New Jersey, Arizona, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [WP]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• The Council of Conservative Citizens (Merits) [PDF] [WP]
• The Rutherford Institute (Merits) [PDF]
• The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Neither Party
• Anti-Defamation League, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

State Farm Mutual Auto. v. Curtis Campbell, et ux.
No. 01-1289

Subject:

Punitive Damages, Constitutional Limitations

Question:

1. Whether the United States Constitution allows a state court to impose and inflate punitive damages based on the defendant's purely out-of-state conduct or its aggregate worldwide "wealth" and profits.
   
   
2. Whether the United States Constitution requires that juries be instructed on the federal constitutional limitations on their ability to assess punitive damages.

Decisions:

• Supreme Court of Utah, Filed: October 19, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 3, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 7, 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 (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
• Joint Appendix Vol. 1 (Merits) [PDF]
• Joint Appendix Vol. 2 (Merits) [PDF]
• Joint Appendix Vol. 3 (Merits) [PDF]
• Joint Appendix Vol. 4 (Merits) [PDF]
• Joint Appendix Vol. 5 (Merits) [PDF]
• Joint Appendix Vol. 6 (Merits) [PDF]
• Joint Appendix Vol. 7 (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• Abbott Laboratories, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Alliance of American Insurers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• American Council of Life Insurers (Merits) [PDF]
• American Tort Reform Association (Merits) [PDF]
• Business Roundtable (Merits) [PDF]
• Chamber of Commerce of the United States (Merits) [PDF]
• Common Good (Merits) [PDF]
• Defense Research Institute (Merits) [PDF]
• DeKalb Genetics Corporation (Merits) [PDF]
• Ford Motor Company (Merits) [PDF]
• Health Insurance Association of America, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• International Mass Retail Association (Merits) [PDF]
• National Association of Manufacturers (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
• National Conference Insurance Legislators (Merits) [PDF]
• A. Mitchell Polinsky, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
• Truck Insurance Exchange, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Washington Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• Association of Trial Lawyers of America (Merits) [PDF]
• California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
• Certain Leading Social Scientists and Legal Scholars (Merits) [PDF]
• Keith N. Hylton (Merits) [PDF]
• States of Minnesota, Delaware, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• United Policyholders (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