US Supreme Court Docket
Supreme Court Docket
Sept
| Oct
| Nov
| Dec
| Jan
| Feb
| Mar
| Apr
| Unscheduled
December 2003
[Download December 2003 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2002 Docket]
Monday, December 1
Sept
| Oct
| Nov
| Dec
| Jan
| Feb
| Mar
| Apr
| Unscheduled
[Click here for 2002 Docket]
United States Postal Service v. Flamingo Industries (USA) Ltd., et al.
No. 02-1290
Subject:
-
Antitrust, Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Definition of "Person"
-
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.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: August 23, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 27, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 25, 2004
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] [TEXT]
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
Shakur Muhammad v. Mark Close
No. 02-9065
Subject:
-
Prisoner Civil Rights Actions, 42 U.S.C. 1983, Conditions of Confinement, Eighth Amendment
- 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.
- 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.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Unpublished Opinion Filed: September 23, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 16, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 25, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Tuesday, December 2
Gary Locke, Governor of Washington, et al. v. Joshua Davey
No. 02-1315
Subject:
-
First Amendment, Free Exercise of Religion Clause, Education
-
Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require a state to fund religious instruction, in the face of a state constitution that provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction, if the state provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit [PDF], Filed: July 18, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 19, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 25, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
-
Parties
- Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF]
- Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
- Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
- Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Lee M. Till, et ux. v. SCS Credit Corporation
No. 02-1016
Subject:
-
Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 "Cramdown" Provision
- 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?
- 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?
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 7th Circuit, Filed: August 21, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 16, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 17, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Wednesday, December 3
Office of Independent Counsel v. Allan J. Favish
No. 02-954
Subject:
-
Freedom of Information Act, Privacy
-
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.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Underlying Decision, Filed: July 12, 2000
- U.S. District Court - Central Dist. of Cal. [PDF], Order and Civil Minutes, Filed: January 11, 2001
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit [PDF], Filed: June 6, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 5, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 30, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
- Petitioner Allan Favish's Web Page on Vincent Foster's Death
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]
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
- Respondent Allan J. Favish (Merits) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [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.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 4th Circuit [PDF] [TEXT], Amended Opinion Filed: October 7, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 27, 2003
- United States Supreme Cour, Decided: February 24, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
George H. Baldwin v. Michael Reese
No. 02-964
Subject:
-
Habeas Corpus, Exhaustion of Remedies Doctrine, Criminal Law
-
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?
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: March 12, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 27, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 2, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Delma Banks, Jr. v. Janie Cockrell, Director, Texas Dept. Criminal Justice
No. 02-8286
Subject:
-
Death Penalty, Habeas Corpus, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Sixth Amendment
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit, Filed: August 20, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 21, 2003
- United States Supreme Cour, Decided: February 24, 2004
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 (Merits) [PDF]
Amicus - Petitioner - John J. Gibbons, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
Tuesday, December 9
United States v. Samuel F. Patane
No. 02-1183
Subject:
-
Arrest, Miranda Warnings, Fifth Amendment, Criminal Law
-
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.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 10th Circuit, Filed: September 17, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 21, 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] [TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
- Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
State of Missouri v. Patrice Seibert
No. 02-1371
Subject:
-
Fifth Amendment, Miranda, Custodial Interrogation, Criminal Law
-
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?
- Supreme Court of Missouri, Filed: December 10, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: 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:
- Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
Wednesday, December 10
John J. Fellers v. United States
No. 02-6320
Subject:
-
Right to Counsel, Miranda Warnings, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law
- 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?
- 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)?
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 8th Circuit [PDF], Filed: April 8, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: March 10, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 26, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Richard Vieth, et al. v. Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al.
No. 02-1580
Subject:
-
Redistricting, Apportionment, Elections, Equal Protection
- Whether the District Court erred in effectively
concluding that voters affiliated with a major political party
may never state a claim of unconstitutional partisan
gerrymandering, thereby nullifying this Court's decision in
Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986).
- Whether a State presumptively violates the Equal
Protection Clause when it subordinates all traditional, neutral
districting principles to the overarching goal of drawing a
congressional redistricting map that achieves maximum
partisan advantage for members of one political party.
- Whether a State exceeds its delegated power under Article I of the Constitution when it draws congressionaldistrict botmdaries to ensure that candidates from one political party will consistently capture a superrnajority of the State's congressional seats even if those candidates win less than half the popular vote statewide.
- U.S. District Court - Middle District of Pennsylvania [PDF], Opinion and Order Granting Motions to Dismiss in Part, Filed: April 8, 2002
- U.S. District Court - Middle District of Pennsylvania [PDF], Opinion and Order Granting Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Filed: April 8, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Probable Jurisdiction Noted: June 27, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 28, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Parties
- Appellants (Merits) [PDF] (1.8 MB)
- Appellees Jubelirer and Perzel (Merits) [PDF]
- Appellees Cortés and Accurti (Merits) [PDF]
- Appellants - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
- American Civil Liberties Union and Brennan Center for Justice (Merits) [PDF]
- Center for Research into Governmental Processes, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
- Democratic Leader of Pennsylvania Senate (Merits) [PDF]
- DKT Liberty Project (Merits) [PDF]
- Pennsylvania Voters JoAnn Erfer and Jeffrey B. Albert (Merits) [PDF]
- Public Citizen, Common Cause, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Jack Rakove, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- The Reform Institute, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Texas House Democratic Caucus, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
- Leadership of the Alabama Senate and House of Representatives (Merits) [PDF]
- Political Scientists Bernard Grofman and Gary Jacobson (Merits) [PDF]
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader
Was this helpful?