US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled
January 2003 [Download January 2003 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2001 Docket]
Monday, January 13

A. Elliott Archer, et ux. v. Arlene L. Warner
No. 01-1418

Subject:

Bankruptcy, Dischargeable Debt, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)

Question:

Whether a promissory note given in settlement of pending litigation can constitue a nondischareable debt "for money, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud," within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(2)(A), where the Parties execute a settlement agreement and general release of all claims of fraud or misrepresentation underlying the litigation and all future claims arising from the same facts, where the debtor has neither admitted nor been found to have engaged in fraud or misrepresentation underlying the litigation, and where the creditor has failed to allege fraud in connection with the procurement of the settlement.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 4th Circuit , Filed: March 8, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 24, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 31, 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] [RTF] [WORD]
• Petitioners - Appendix (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  
• Petitioners (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
• Joint Appendix (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• AARP (Merits) [PDF]
• G. Eric Brunstad, Jr. (Merits) [PDF]
• State of Ohio and Twenty-nine Other States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Erick C. Clay v. United States
No. 01-1500

Subject:

Habeas Corpus, Finality of Conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Question:

Whether petitioner's judgment of conviction became "final" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, para. 6(1) when the court of appeals issued its mandate on direct appeal or when his time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari expired.

Decisions:

• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 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]
• Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondent
• David W. DeBruin (Merits) [PDF]

Tuesday, January 14

Cook County, IL v. United States, ex rel. Chandler
No. 01-1572

Subject:

False Claims Act, Qui Tam Actions, Local Government

Question:

Whether local government entities are subject to qui tam actions under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 7th Circuit, Filed: January 22, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 10, 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 Chandler (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• Cities of New York, Boston, et al. (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  
• Cities of New York, Boston, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Forty-three Local Governmental Airport Proprietors (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Orange County, CA, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Texas Association of School Boards Legal Assistance Fund, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  Amicus - Respondent
• K & R Limited Partnership, et al. [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Kentucky Assn. of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller
No. 00-1471

Subject:

ERISA, Preemption of State Law, Health Insurance

Question:

Whether Kentucky's "any willing provider" law, which requires each health maintenance organization (HMO) in the State to make available to its subscribers the services of any medical provider in its geographical region that agrees to the terms and conditions offered by the HMO, is saved from preemption as a law that "regulates insurance" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A).

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: September 7, 2000
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 2, 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 (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• American Association of Health Plans, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Community Health Partners, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Society for Human Resource Management (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondent
• United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• American College of Legal Medicine (Merits) [PDF]
• American Medical Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• States of Texas, California, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Wednesday, January 15

Demore, District Dir., INS v. Hyung Joon Kim
No. 01-1491

Subject:

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Mandatory Detention, Fifth Amendment, Due Process

Question:

Whether respondent's mandatory detention under [8 U.S.C.] Section 1226(c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit [PDF], Filed: May 16, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 29, 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] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• Petitioners (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
• Joint Appendix (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• Washington Legal Foundation, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Washington Legal Foundation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondent
• T. Alexander Aleinikoff, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• American Bar Association (Merits) [PDF]
• Citizens and Immigrants for Equal Justice, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• International Human Rights Organizations (Merits) [PDF]
• Law Faculty, Susan Akram, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. William Hibbs, et al.
No. 01-1368

Subject:

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 11th Amendment, 14th Amendment, Immunity, Federalism

Question:

Whether 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C), the family medical care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, is a proper exercise of Congress's power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, thereby constituting a valid exercise of congressional power to abrogate the states' 11th Amendment immunity from suit by individuals.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit [PDF], Filed: December 11, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 24, 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
• Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioners - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]
• Respondent United States - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondent United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioners - Reply Appendix (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• States of Alabama, Alaska, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Pacific Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
• States of Alabama, Alaska, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) (Merits) [PDF]
• Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• National Women's Law Center, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Senators Dodd and Kennedy, Representatives Schroeder, Roukema and Miller (Merits) [PDF]
• Women's History Scholars (Merits) [PDF]

Tuesday, January 21

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) Question:

In Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997), this Court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) (28 U.S.C. 2241, et seq.) did not apply to cases which commenced prior to the AEDPA's April 24, 1996, effective date. The circuits are split as to when a capital case commences for purposes of triggering the AEDPA. With one exception, all the circuits to consider the issue have found the AEDPA applies if the actual petition was filed on or after the AEDPA's effective date. However, in the Ninth Circuit, the AEDPA does not apply to a federal petition filed on or after April 24, 1996, if motions for appointment of counsel and stay of execution were filed before that date. Calderon v. United States District Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). What is the correct trigger event for the application of the AEDPA in capital cases?

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: February 15, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 1, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 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]
• Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]

City of Cuyahoga Falls, OH, et al. v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, et al.
No. 01-1269

Subject:

Discrimination, Disparate Impact, Due Process

Question:

1. In considering a claim against a municipal corporation for intentional discrimination arising out of a facially neutral and judicially upheld referendum petition, may the court inquire into the motivations of a handful of the citizens who expressed support for the referendum and impute those motivations to the entire municipal corporation?
   
   
2. In light of the constitutional freedom of poltical expression, can a disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Act be maintained against a municipal corporation for the alleged impact of the filing of a facially neutral and judicially upheld referendum petition?
   
   
3. Does the due process clause of the constitution require a muncipal corporation to issue building permits when the underlying conditions for the issuance of building permits have not been met and the municipal corporation's witholding of the permits is required by the judgments of state courts of competent jurisdiction?

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit , Filed: August 31, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 24, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 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
• Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• National Multi Housing Council, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Neither Party
• Pacific Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]

Wednesday, January 22

Dole Food Company, et al. v. Gerardo D. Patrickson
No. 01-593

Dead Sea Bromine Co. v. Gerardo D. Patrickson
No. 01-594

Subject:

Corporations, Foreign States, Foreign Service Immunities Act (FSIA)

Question:

1. Whether a corporation is an "agency or instrumentality" if a foreign state owns a majority of the shares of a corporate enterpise that in turn owns a majority of the shares of the corporation.
   
   
2. Whether a corporation is an "agency or instrumentality" if a foreign state owned a majority of the shares of the corporation at the time of the events giving rise to litigation, but the foreign state does not own a majority of those shares at the time that a plaintiff commences a suit against the corporation.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: January 22, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 22, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet (No. 01-593) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Docket Sheet (No. 01-594) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioners Dole Food Co., et al. (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioners Dole Food Co., et al. - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioners Dole Food Co., et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioners Dole Food Co., et al. - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• Consortium de Realisation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) v. Kevin Concannon, et al.
No. 01-188

Subject:

Medicaid, State's rights, Commerce Clause

Question:

1. Whether the federal Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., allows a state to use authority under that statute to compel drug manufacturers to subsidize price discounts on prescription drugs for non-Medicaid populations?
   
   
2. Whether a state may circumvent the Commerce Clause prohibition against regulating or taxing wholly out-of-state transactions by requiring an out-of-state manufacturer, which sells its products to wholesalers outside the state, to pay the state each time one of its products is subsequently sold by a retailer within the state?

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 1st Circuit, Filed: May 16, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2002
• 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]
• Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Supplemental Brief (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF] (Large File)
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• Chamber of Commerce of the United States (Petition) [PDF]
• United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• Chamber of Commerce of the United States (Merits) [PDF]
• International Patient Advocacy Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance (Merits) [PDF]
• Pacific Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Washington Legal Foundation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• Maine Council of Senior Citizens, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• States of Massachusetts, Alaska, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Neither Party
• Legal Services Organizations Representing Medicaid Beneficiaries (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