Supreme Court Docket
Oct
| Nov
| Dec
| Jan
| Feb
| Mar
| Apr
| Unscheduled
February 2005
[
Download February 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[
Click here for 2003-2004 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files
that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
Tuesday, February 22
Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al.
No. 04-108
Subject:
Fifth Amendment, Due Process, Public Use, Eminent Domain
Question:
What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for
individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight,
but for the sole purpose of "economic development" that will perhaps increase tax
revenues and improve the local economy?
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Amicus - Supporting Petitioners
Merits Phase
- America's
Future, Inc., et al.
- American Farm
Bureau Federation, et al.
(1.4 MB)
- Becket Fund
for Religious Liberty
- Better
Government Association, et al.
- Professors
David L. Callies, et al.
(1.4 MB)
- Cascade
Policy Institute, et al.
- The Cato
Institute
- Claremont
Institute
- Develop Dont
Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc., et al.
- Goldwater
Institute, et al.
- Jane
Jacobs
(2 MB)
- King Ranch,
Inc.
- Laura B. Kohr,
et al.
- Mountain
States Legal Foundation, et al.
- NAACP, AARP,
et al.
(1.8 MB)
- National
Association of Homebuilders, et al.
(1.4 MB)
- New London
Landmarks, Inc., et al.
(2.2 MB)
- New London
Railroad Co., Inc.
- John
Norquist, President, Congress for New Urbanism
(1.5 MB)
- Pacific Legal
Foundation, et al.
- Property
Rights Foundation of America
(4 MB)
- Reason
Foundation
- Robert
Nigel Richards, et al.
- Rutherford
Institute
(1.1 MB)
- Tidewater
Libertarian Party
Amicus - Supporting Respondents
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners Kelo, et al.:
Scott G. Bullock
Institute For Justice
Washington, DC
For Respondents New London, et al.:
Wesley W. Horton
Horton Shields & Knox
PC
Hartford, CT
Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
No. 04-163
Subject:
Just Compensation Clause, State Economic Legislation
Questions:
- Whether the Just Compensation Clause authorizes a court to invalidate state
economic legislation on its face and enjoin enforcement of the law on the
basis that the legislation does not substantially advance a legitimate state
interest, without regard to whether the challenged law diminishes the
economic value or usefulness of any property.
- Whether a court, in determining under the Just Compensation Clause
whether state economic legislation substantially advances a legitimate state
interest, should apply a deferential standard of review equivalent to that
traditionally applied to economic legislation under the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses, or may instead substitute its judgment for that of the
legislature by determining de novo, by a preponderance of the evidence at
trial, whether the legislation will be effective in achieving its goals.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Amicus - Supporting Petitioners
Amicus - Supporting Respondent
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners Lingle, et al.:
Seth P. Waxman
Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Chevron U.S.A. Inc.:
Craig E. Stewart
Jones Day
San Francisco, CA
Wednesday, February 23
Francis A. Orff, et al. v. United States, et al.
No. 03-1566
Subject:
Third-party Beneficiaries, Water Service and Repayment Contracts, Entitlement to Sue Agency
Question:
The question presented is whether farmers are "intended" third-party beneficiaries
of their irrigation district's water service and repayment contracts with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation and, therefore, entitled to sue the Bureau for breach
thereof, as the Federal Circuit has long held, or merely "incidental" third-party
beneficiaries and, therefore, not so entitled, as the Ninth Circuit holds in the
decision below.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners Orff, et al:
William M.
Smiland
Smiland &
Khachigian
Los Angeles, CA
For Respondents United States, et al.:
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondent Westlands Water District:
Stuart L. Somach
Somach, Simmons &
Dunn
Sacramento, CA
Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation
No. 03-1696
Subject:
Dual Ffederal and State Jurisdiction, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Preclusion Principles
Question:
May the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars lower federal courts from conducting
de facto appellate review of decisions by state courts, be expansively interpreted to
additionally incorporate preclusion principles and divest federal courts of jurisdiction
solely because a pending state-court proceeding presents identical issues,
notwithstanding the long-established system of dual federal and state jurisdiction?
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners Exxon Mobil Corp., et al.:
Gregory Scott
Coleman
Weil, Gotshal &
Manges LLP
Austin, TX
For Respondent Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.:
Gregory Andrew
Castanias
Jones Day
Washington, DC
Monday, February 28
Douglas Spector, et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
No. 03-1388
Subject:
Americans with Disabilities Act, Foreign-Flag Cruise Ships
Question:
Whether and to what extent Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies
to companies that operate foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters?
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners Spector, et al.:
Thomas C.
Goldstein
Goldstein & Howe,
P.C.
Washington, DC
For Respondent Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd:
Thomas H.
Wilson
Vinson & Elkins
L.L.P.
Houston, TX
John A. Pace v. David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at
Graterford, et al.
No. 03-9627
Subject:
Questions:
- Should this Court grant the writ to resolve a conflict between the Courts of
Appeal regarding an important question that this Court explicitly reserved in
Artuz v. Bennett, 531
U.S. 4 (2000) - whether an untimely state postconviction
petition may be "properly filed" under 2244(d)(2)?
- Should this Court grant the writ to resolve a conflict between the Courts of
Appeal regarding whether Carey
v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) answered the question about "properly filed"
that Artuz reserved?
- Should this Court grant the writ to answer the question about "properly filed"
which was reserved by Artuz and which the Third Circuit decided
erroneously?
- Should this Court grant the writ and review the Third Circuit's denial of
equitable tolling, where the Third Circuit denies all federal habeas review to
petitioners who act appropriately, reasonably and diligently, and as
demanded by the exhaustion requirement, in seeking state court remedies?
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Pace:
Billy H. Nolas
Defender
Association of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, PA
For Respondents DiGuglielmo, et al.:
Ronald
Eisenberg
Deputy District Attorney
Philadelphia, PA
Oct
| Nov
| Dec
| Jan
| Feb
| Mar
| Apr
| Unscheduled
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader