Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

Unscheduled October 2003 Term
Hernan O'Ryan Castro v. United States
No. 02-6683

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Successive Petitions, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)
Question:
  1. When a U.S. District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, does such re-characterization make the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a 2255 petition a "second or successive petition" within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)?

  2. Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the Eleventh Circuit's decision affirming the dismissal of a 2255 petition for writ of habeas corpus as second or successive?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

John M. Lamie v. United States Trustee
No. 02-693

Subject:

Question: Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  • Respondent - Response (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Linda Frew, et al. v. Albert Hawkins, Commissioner, Texas Health and Human Servs. Commission, et al.
No. 02-628

Subject:

Question:
  1. Do State officials waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by urging the district court to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for the district court's ongoing supervision of the officials' decree compliance?

  2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consent decree entered into by State officials unless the plaintiffs show that the "decree violation is also a violation of a federal right" remediable under [42 U.S.C.] 1983?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
No. 02-682

Subject:

    Antitrust, Standing, Civil Procedure
Question:
    Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the District Court's dismissal of respondent's antitrust claims?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioner
  • United States and Federal Trade Commission (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

John J. Fellers v. United States
No. 02-6320

Subject:

    Right to Counsel, Miranda Warnings, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law
Question:
  1. Did the 8th Circuit err when it concluded that Feller's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because he was not interrogated by government agents when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent is whether the the government agents deliberately elicited information from him?

  2. Should second statements, preceded by Miranda warnings, have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal post-indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court's decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Jeff Groh v. Joseph R. Ramirez, et al.
No. 02-811

Subject:

    Search Warrants, Fourth Amendment, Qualified Immunity, Criminal Law, Civil Rights
Question:
  1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law.

  2. Whether law enforcement officers violate the particularity requirement of the 4th Amendment when they execute a search warrant already approved by a magistrate judge, based on an attached application and affidavit properly describing with particularity the items to be searched and seized, but the warrant itself does not include the same level of detail.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
No. 02-658

Subject:

Question:
    Whether Sections 113(a)(5) and 167 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(a)(5) and 7477, authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to issue administrative orders to prevent construction of a major emitting facility where a state permitting authority is prepared to grant the facility operator a "prevention-of-significant-deterioration" air quality permit based on an arbitrary and capricious application of the statutory requirement that such sources of air pollution be subject to the best available control technology.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Respondents (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Sec. Admin. v. Pauline Thomas
No. 02-763

Subject:

    Social Security Act, Disability
Question:
    Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant "shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). Under the Act, "work which exists in the national economy" means "work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The question presented is:

Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not "disabled" within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

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

United States v. Lashawn Lowell Banks
No. 02-473

Subject:

Question:
    Whether law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search for illegal drugs violated the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered a small apartment in the middle of the afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Raytheon Company, et al. v. Joel Hernandez
No. 02-749

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioners
  • Equal Employment Advisory Council (Petition) [PDF]

Maryland v. Joseph Jermaine Pringle
No. 02-809

Subject:

    Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, Criminal Law
Question:
    Where drugs and a roll of cash are found in the passenger compartment of a car with multiple occupants, and all deny ownership, does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a police officer form arresting the occupants of the car?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

State of Arizona v. Rodney J. Gant
No. 02-1019

Subject:

    Search and Seizure, Fourth Amendment, Criminal Law
Question:
    When police arrest the recent occupant of a vehicle outside the vehicle, are they precluded from searching the vehicle pursuant to New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), unless the arrestee was actually or constructively aware of the police before getting out of the vehicle?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

United States v. Samuel F. Patane
No. 02-1183

Subject:

    Arrest, Miranda Warnings, Fifth Amendment, Criminal Law
Question:
    Whether a failure to give a suspect the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), requires the suppression of physical evidence derived from the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statement.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Dennis Cline, et al.
No. 02-1080

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits "reverse discrimination," i.e., employer actions, practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles E. Edwards
No. 02-1196

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that an investment scheme is excluded from the term "investment contract" in the definitions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10), if the promoter promises a fixed rather than variable return or if the investor is contractually entitled to a particular amount or rate of return?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

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

Delma Banks, Jr. v.Janie Cockrell, Director, Texas Dept. Criminal Justice
No. 02-8286

Subject:

    Death Penalty, Habeas Corpus, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Sixth Amendment
Question:
  1. Did the 5th Circuit err in rejecting Banks' claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial, on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of "utmost importance" to showing a capital sentence was appropriate?

  2. Did the 5th Circuit act contrary to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), when it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively?

  3. Did the 5th Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969) and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceedings because "evidentiary hearings" in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner
  • John J. Gibbons, et al. (Petition) [PDF]

Andrew J. Kontrick v. Robert A. Ryan
No. 02-819

Subject:

    Bankruptcy Law
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Office of Independent Counsel v. Allan J. Favish
No. 02-954

Subject:

Question:
    The Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C) protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" if their production "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C). The question presented is:

    Whether the Office of Independent Counsel properly withheld, under Exemption 7(C), photographs relating to the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  • Respondent Allan J. Favish - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
  • Respondents Sheila Foster Anthony and Lisa Foster Moody (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

State of Illinois v. Robert S. Lidster
No. 02-1060

Subject:

    Vehicle Checkpoints, Fourth Amendment, Criminal Law
Question:
    Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, stopping all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about the offense and arresting motorists for drunk driving.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Edith Jones, et al., etc. v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
No. 02-1205

Subject:

    [Coming Soon]
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Gary Locke, Governor of Washington, et al. v. Joshua Davey
No. 02-1315

Subject:

    [Coming Soon]
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF

State of Missouri v. Patrice Seibert
No. 02-1371

Subject:

    Fifth Amendment, Miranda, Custodial Interrogation, Criminal Law
Question:
    Is the rule from Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled form waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings, abrogated when the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings was intentional?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

United States Postal Service v. Flamingo Industries (USA) Ltd., et al.
No. 02-1290

Subject:

    Antitrust, Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Definition of "Person"
Question:
    The federal antitrust laws apply to a "person," which is defined to include "corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States." 15 U.S.C. §§ 7 (Sherman Act), 12(a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a "person" amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

George H. Baldwin v. Michael Reese
No. 02-964

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus, Exhaustion of Remedies Doctrine, Criminal Law
Question:
    For the purposes of exhausting all available state court remedies to seek federal habeas corpus relief, does a state prisoner "alert" the State's highest court that he is raising a federal claim when, in that court, he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Olympic Airways v. Rubina Husain, etc., et al.
No. 02-1348

Subject:

    Warsaw Convention, Transportation Law, Wrongful Death
Question:
    Whether the "accident" condition precedent to air carrier liability for a passenger's death under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention is satisfied when a passenger's pre-existing medical condition is aggravated by exposure to a normal condition in the aircraft cabin, even if the carrier's negligence was a link in the chain of causation.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Engine Manufacturers Association, et al. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al.
No. 02-1343

Subject:

Question:
    Whether local government regulations prohibiting the purchase of new motor vehicles with specified emission characteristics--which are otherwise approved for sale by state and federal regulators--are preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Michael D. Crawford v. State of Washington
No. 02-9410

Subject:

    Sixth Amendment, Confrontation Clause, Criminal Law
Question:
  1. Whether the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment permits the admission against a criminal defendant of a custodial statement by a potential accomplice on the ground that parts of the statement "interlock" with the defendant's custodial statement.

  2. Whether the Confrontation Clause framework established in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) should be reevaluated and read to unequivocally prohibit the admission of out-of-court statements insofar as they are contained in "testimonial" materials, such as tape-recorded custodial statements.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Lee M. Till, et ux. v. SCS Credit Corporation
No. 02-1016

Subject:

Question:
  1. Is an undersecured creditor entitled to the "indubitable equivalent" of its nonbankruptcy entitlement for purposes of discounting deferred payments to present value under the Chapter 13 cramdown provision at 11 U.S.C. 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii), resulting in fixing of a subprime lender's 21% contract rate as the presumptive discount rate?

  2. What is the proper method for discounting of deferred payments to present value on property retained by the debtor under the Chapter 13 cramdown provision, and what is the creditor entitled to be compensated for in calculating the appropriate discount rate of interest?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Shakur Muhammad v. Mark Close
No. 02-9065

Subject:

    Prisoner Civil Rights Actions, 42 U.S.C. 1983, Conditions of Confinement, Eighth Amendment
Question:
  1. Whether a plaintiff who wishes to bring a [42 U.S.C.] Section 1983 suit challenging only the conditions, rather than the fact or duration, of his confinement, must satisfy the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey.

  2. Whether a prison inmate who has been, but is no longer, in administrative segregation may bring a Section 1983 suit challenging the conditions of his confinement (i.e. his prior placement in administrative segregation) without first satisfying the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

United States v. Abel C. Galletti, et al.
No. 02-1389

Subject:

    Taxation, Business Partnerships
Question:
    Whether, in order to enforce the derivative liability of partners for the tax debts of their partnership, the United States must make a separate assessment of the taxes owed by the partnership against each of the partners directly.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri v. Missouri Municipal League, et al.
02-1238

Federal Communications Commission and United States v. Missouri Municipal League, et al.
02-1386

Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., fka Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Missouri Municipal League, et al.
02-1405

Subject:

    Telecommunications, Federalism, Preemption
Question:
    Whether 47 U.S.C. § 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State * * * regulation * * * may prohibit * * * the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the State from offering telecommunications service to the public.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioners FCC and United States (No. 02-1386) (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

State of Tennessee v. George Lane, et al.
No. 02-1667

Subject:

    [Coming Soon]
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Richard Vieth, et al. v. Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al.
No. 02-1580

Subject:

    Redistricting, Apportionment, Elections
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Raymond B. Yates, M.D., etc. v. William T. Henton, Trustee
No. 02-458

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

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

Household Credit Services v. Sharon R. Pfennig
No. 02-857

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account (15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)) rather than as a "finance charge" (15 U.S.C. 1605(a)), within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.<
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

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

Buck Doe, et al. v. Elaine L. Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor
No. 02-1377

Subject:

Question:
    Whether, under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an individual who has proven a violation of the Privacy Act, but cannot prove actual damages, is automatically entitled to $1000 in damages.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, et al.
No. 02-626

Subject:

Question:
    Whether petitioner's longstanding practice of pumping accumulated water from a water collection canal to a water conservation area within the Florida Everglades constitutes an addition of a pollutant from a point source for purposes of Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, where the water contains a pollutant but the pumping station source itself adds no pollutants to the water being pumped.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

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

 

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?

Response sent, thank you

Copied to clipboard