Supreme Court Docket
Sept
| Oct
| Nov
| Dec
| Jan
| Feb
| Mar
| Apr
| Unscheduled
April 2004
[
Download April 2004 Argument Calendar 
]
[
Click here for 2002 Docket]
Monday, April 19
Central Laborers' Pension v. Thomas E. Heinz, et al.
No. 02-891
Subject:
Question:
ERISA's "anti-cutback" rule, 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), generally prohibits any
pension plan amendment which has the effect of eliminating or reducing a
participant's early retirement benefit or a retirement-type subsidy with
respect to benefits attributable to service before the amendment. The
Seventh Circuit, expressly acknowledging its direct conflict with a 1998
decision of the Fifth Circuit, held that a pension plan amendment which
expands the types of post-retirement employment that trigger mandatory
suspension of early retirement benefits violates the anti- cutback rule when
applied to suspend the benefits of participants who retired before the
amendment.
The question presented is whether a "suspension" of early retirement
benefits pursuant to a multiemployer pension plan amendment is an
"elimination" or a "reduction" of such benefits which would be prohibited by
ERISA's anti-cutback rule.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Amicus - Supporting Petitioner
Amicus - Supporting Respondents
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Central Laborers' Pension:
Jeffrey M. Wilday
Brown, Hay & Stephens
Springfield, IL
For Respondents Heinz, et al.:
David M Gossett
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw
Washington, DC
Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Warren W. Summerlin
No. 03-526
Subject:
Retroactivity of Rules in Judicial Decisions, Death Penalty, Habeas Corpus
Question:
In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 (2002), this Court held that the
Sixth Amendment jury trial guarantee extends to the determination of any
fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the maximum punishment
for first-degree murder from life imprisonment to death. In the instant case,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the rule
announced in Ring should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral
review.
- Did the Ninth Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring is substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exempt from the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (plurality)?
- Did the Ninth Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague's exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that alter bedrock procedural principles and seriously enhance the accuracy of the proceedings?
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Schriro:
John Pressley Todd
Assistant Attorney General
Phoenix, AZ
For Respondent Summerlin:
Ken Murray
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Tuesday, April 20
Shafiq Rasul, et al. v. George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al.
No. 03-334
Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah, et al. v. United States, et al.
No. 03-343
Subject:
Jurisdiction, Detention of Foreign Nationals, Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Terrorism, Criminal Law
Question:
Petitioners are citizens of Great Britain and Australia. Seized abroad in apparent connection with the
United States' "War on Terrorism," they have been incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without
charges or proof of wrongdoing, and with no opportunity to establish their innocence, for over 18
months. The Government claims it may hold Petitioners under these conditions indefinitely, and that
no court has jurisdiction to review the cause for their detention. The courts below agreed. In this
context, the case presents the following question:
Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Petition Phase
- Petitioners Shafiq Rasul, et al.
(1.7 MB)
- Petitioners Shafiq Rasul, et al. - Appendix
(3.4 MB)
- Petitioners Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah, et al.
- Respondents George W. Bush, United States, et al. - Opposition
[TEXT]
Merits Phase
- Petitioners Shafiq Rasul, et al.
- Petitioners Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah, et al.
- Respondents George W. Bush, United States, et al.
[TEXT]
- Petitioners Shafiq Rasul, et al. - Reply
(3 MB)
- Petitioners Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah, et al. - Reply
Amicus - Supporting Petitioners
Amicus - Supporting Repondents
Amicus - Supporting Neither Party
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners Rasul, et al.:
Joseph Margulies
Margulies & Richman PLC
Minneapolis, MN
For Petitioners Al Odah, et al.:
Thomas B. Wilner
Shearman & Sterling
Washington, DC
For Respondents Bush, United States, et al.:
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Intel Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
No. 02-572
Subject:
Foreign Tribunals, Commission of European
Communities, Antitrust, Production of Documents
Questions:
28 U.S.C. 1782 authorizes the federal district courts to grant discovery to
"interested person[s]" for use "in a proceeding in a foreign or international
tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal
accusation."
The questions presented are:
- Whether section 1782 authorizes a federal district court to provide a
private person with discovery that the foreign jurisdiction itself does not
authorize.
- Whether section 1782 allows civil discovery by a private person when no
"proceeding" before a foreign "tribunal" is pending or even imminent.
- Whether section 1782 extends discovery rights in the United States to
private non-litigants.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Amicus - Supporting Petitioner
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Intel Corp.:
Seth P. Waxman
Wilmer Cutler Pickering LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.:
Patrick Lynch
O'Melveny & Myers
Los Angeles, CA
Wednesday, April 21
United States v. Carlos D. Benitez
No. 03-167
Subject:
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11
Question:
Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate
that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner United States:
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
For Respondent Benitez:
Myra D. Mossman
Santa Barbara, CA
United States Department of Transportation, et al. v. Public Citizen, et al.
No. 03-358
Subject:
Question:
Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt
from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental
Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1),
became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated
administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners U.S. Dept. of Transportation, et al.:
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
For Respondents Public Citizen, et al.:
Jonathan Weissglass
Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain
San Franscisco, CA
Monday, April 26
Cheryl K. Pliler, Warden v. Richard H. Ford
No. 03-221
Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Exhaustion of Remedies
Questions:
- This Court held over twenty years ago that "a district court must dismiss
habeas petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims." Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1981). The question presented is:
Whether the dismissal of such a "mixed" habeas petition is improper unless
the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of the
proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitioner
with respect to the statute of limitations in the event of any refiling.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), "[a]n amendment of a
pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when relation back
is permitted by the law that provides the statute of limitations applicable to
the action, or [] ... the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading
arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted
to be set forth in the original pleading ...." The question presented is:
Whether a second, untimely habeas petition may relate back to a first habeas
petition, where the first habeas petition was dismissed and the first
proceeding is no longer pending.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Pliler:
Paul Monroe Roadarmel, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Los Angeles, CA
For Respondent Ford:
Lisa M. Bassis
Los Angeles, CA
F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., et al. v. Empagran S.A., et al.
No. 03-724
Subject:
Question:
The District of Columbia Circuit, in a divided opinion, interpreted the Foreign Trade
Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. 6a, to permit U.S. antitrust claims by
foreign buyers based on transactions with foreign sellers conducted entirely in
foreign countries. Rehearing was denied by a 4-3 vote. The D.C. Circuit's decision
conflicts with decisions of other courts of appeals and with the views of the United
States. The question presented is as follows:
Whether plaintiffs may pursue Sherman Act claims seeking recovery for injuries
sustained in transactions occurring entirely outside U.S. commerce.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Amicus - Supporting Petitioners
Amicus - Supporting Respondents
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., et al.:
Arthur F. Golden
Davis Polk & Wardwell
New York, NY 10017
For Respondents Empagran S.A., et al.:
Michael D. Hausfeld
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC
Washington, DC 20005
Thomas C. Goldstein
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC
Tuesday, April 27
Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia
No. 03-475
Subject:
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Executive Privilege
Questions:
- Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, 1 et seq., can be construed,
consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation
of powers, and this Court's decisions governing
judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize
broad discovery of the process by which the Vice
President and other senior advisors gathered information
to advise the President on important national
policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation
in a complaint that the advisory group was not
constituted as the President expressly directed and the
advisory group itself reported.
- Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or
appellate jurisdiction to review the district courts
unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation.
Decisions:
- U.S. District Court - District of Columbia
Filed: July 11, 2002 (Dismissing Certain Defendants, Claims)
- U.S. District Court - District of Columbia
Filed: August 2, 2002 (Discovery Order)
- U.S. District Court - District of Columbia
Filed: October 17, 2002 (Denial of Protective Order, Ordering Production of Documents)
- U.S. District Court - District of Columbia
Filed: November 3, 2002 (Denial of Motion for Stay of Proceedings)
- U.S. District Court - District of Columbia
Filed: November 26, 2002 (Denial of Request for Interlocutory Appeal)
- U.S. Court of Appeals - DC Circuit, Filed: July 8, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 15, 2003
- Memorandum of Justice Scalia
Filed: March 18, 2004 (Denying Respondent Sierra Club's Motion to Recuse)
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 24, 2004
Resources:
Related Documents:
Briefs:
Parties
Amicus - Supporting Respondents Sierra Club and Judicial Watch
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners Cheney, et al.:
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
For Respondent Sierra Club:
Alan B. Morrison
Public Citizen Litigation Group
Washington, DC
For Respondent Judicial Watch:
Paul J. Orfanedes
Judicial Watch, Inc.
Washington, DC
Wednesday, April 28
Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi, as Next Friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al.
No. 03-6696
Subject:
Indefinite Detention of Enemy Combatants, Habeas Corpus, Fifth Amendment, Right to Court Access, Due Process
Questions:
- Does the Constitution permit Executive officials to detain an American
citizen indefinitely in military custody in the United States, hold him
essentially incommunicado and deny him access to counsel, with no
opportunity to question the factual basis for his detention before any
impartial tribunal, on the sole ground that he was seized abroad in a
theater of the War on Terrorism and declared by the Executive to be an
"enemy combatant"?
- Is the indefinite detention of an American citizen seized abroad but held
in the United States solely on the assertion of Executive officials that he
is an "enemy combatant" permissible under applicable congressional
statutes and treaty provisions?
- In a habeas corpus proceeding challenging the indefinite detention of an
American citizen seized abroad, detained in the United States, and
declared by Executive officials to be an "enemy combatant," does the
separation of powers doctrine preclude a federal court from following
ordinary statutory procedures and conducting an inquiry into the factual
basis for the Executive branch's asserted justification of the detention?
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Amicus - Supporting Petitioners
Amicus - Supporting Respondents
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners Hamdi:
Frank W. Dunham, Jr.
Federal Public Defender
Alexandria, VA
For Respondents Rumsfeld, et al.:
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense v. Jose Padilla and Donna R. Newman, as Next Friend of Jose Padilla
No. 03-1027
Subject:
Questions:
- Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and warlike acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority.
- Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition.
Decisions:
- U.S. Dist. Court - Southern Dist. of New York
Opinion and Order, Filed: December 4, 2002
- U.S. Dist. Court - Southern Dist. of New York
Opinion and Order, Filed: March 11, 2003
- U.S. Dist. Court - Southern Dist. of New York
Order Certifying Interlocutory Appeal, Filed: April 9, 2003
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit
Filed: December 18, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Order Granting Motion to Expedite Consideration of Petition, Filed: January 23, 2004
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: February 20, 2004
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Amicus - Supporting Petitioner
Amicus - Supporting Respondents
Merits Phase
- International Law Professors Aceves, Arzt, et al.
- Professors of Constitutional Law Ackerman, Chemerinsky, et al.
- Law Professors Akram, Albert, et al.
- American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
(7.5 MB) [Low Res.
(1 MB)]
- Association of the Bar of the City of New York, et al.
- Cato Institute
- Center for Nat'l Security Studies and the Constitution Project
- Comparative Law Scholars, et al.
(1.8 MB)
- Congressional Sponsors of 18 U.S.C. 4001(A)

- Global Rights
- Law Professors Gross, Harcourt, et al.
- Law Professors Henkin, Koh, et al.
- Judges Hufstedler, Jones, et al.
- Fred Korematsu, et al.
- Law of War Experts
- Legal and Religious Organizations, et al.
- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al.
- Others Are Us and Jonathan D. Wallace
- Practitioners and Specialists in the Int'l Law of War
- Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia
- Janet Reno, et al.
- The Rutherford Institute et al.
- Spartacist League and Partisan Defense Committee
(1 MB)
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Rumsfeld:
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
For Respondent Padilla:
Donna Newman
New York, NY
Sept
| Oct
| Nov
| Dec
| Jan
| Feb
| Mar
| Apr
| Unscheduled
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader
To listen to audio files listed on this page, you will need RealPlayer
