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

December 2003
[Download December 2003 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2002 Docket]
Monday, December 1

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]

  • 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
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:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF]

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
Question:
    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?
Decisions:

Resources:

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:

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:

    Parites
  • Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF]

Wednesday, December 3

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]

  • 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.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

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

  • Respondents (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
Monday, December 8

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:

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

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]

  • 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
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:

    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
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:

  • 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
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:

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

Subject:

    Redistricting, Apportionment, Elections, Equal Protection
Question:
  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
   Parties

  • Appellants (Merits) [PDF] (1.8 MB)
  • Appellees Jubelirer and Perzel (Merits) [PDF]
  • Appellees Cortés and Accurti (Merits) [PDF]
  • Appellants - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
   Amici Curiae - Appellants
  • 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]
   Amici Curiae - Appellees
  • Leadership of the Alabama Senate and House of Representatives (Merits) [PDF]
   Amici Curiae - Neither Party
  • Political Scientists Bernard Grofman and Gary Jacobson (Merits) [PDF]

 

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

 

To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader

 

Copied to clipboard