Skip to main content
For Legal Professionals
Find a Lawyer

US Supreme Court Docket

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.
  1. 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)?

  2. 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 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:
  1. Whether section 1782 authorizes a federal district court to provide a private person with discovery that the foreign jurisdiction itself does not authorize.

  2. Whether section 1782 allows civil discovery by a private person when no "proceeding" before a foreign "tribunal" is pending or even imminent.

  3. 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:
  1. 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.


  2. 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:
  1. 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.

  2. Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district courts unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation.
Decisions:

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:
  1. 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"?

  2. 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?

  3. 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:
  1. 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.

  2. Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

Parties

Amicus - Supporting Petitioner

Amicus - Supporting Respondents 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
Download RealPlayer

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Copied to clipboard