US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

April 2006
[Download April 2006 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2004 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
Monday, April 17 Washington v. Arturo R. Recuenco
No. 05-83

Subject:

    Sentence Enhancement, Harmless Error, Criminal Law, Sentencing
Question:

Whether error as to the definition of a sentencing enhancement should be subject to harmless error analysis where it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict on the enhancement.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:

    Parties
    Merits Phase Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Washington:
    James M. Whisman
    King County Prosecuting Attorney
    Seattle, WA
    For Respondent Recuenco:
    Gregory C. Link
    Seattle, WA


    Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sheila White
    No. 05-259

    Subject:

      Title VII, Retaliatory Discrimination, Materially Adverse Change, Protected Activity, Labor & Employment, Civil Rights
    Question:
      Whether an employer may be held liable for retaliatory discrimination under Title VII for any "materially adverse change in the terms of employment" (including a temporary suspension rescinded by the employer with full back pay or an inconvenient reassignment, as the court below held); for any adverse treatment that was "reasonably likely to deter" the plaintiff from engaging in protected activity (as the Ninth Circuit holds); or only for an "ultimate employment decision" (as two other courts of appeals hold).
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties
      Merits Phase
    Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.:

    Carter G. Phillips
    Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
    Washington, DC
    For Respondent White:
    Emily Elizabeth Garrard
    Donati Law Firm LLP
    Memphis, TN


    Tuesday, April 18

    United States v. Cuauhtemoc Gonzales-Lopez
    No. 05-352

    Subject:

      Right to Counsel, Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law, Counsel of Choice
    Question:
      Whether a district court's denial of a criminal defendant's qualified right to be represented by counsel of choice requires automatic reversal of his conviction.
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner United States:

    Paul D. Clement
    U.S. Solicitor General
    Washington, DC
    For Respondent Gonzalez-Lopez:
    Jeffrey L. Fisher
    Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
    Seattle, WA


    Jacob Zedner v. United States
    No. 05-5992

    Subject:

      Speedy Trial Act, Right to Counsel, Sixth Amendment, Indictments, Criminal Law
    Questions:
    1. Whether, in light of the statute's text and Congress's goal of protecting the public interest in prompt criminal trials, the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act may be waived only in the limited circumstances mentioned in the statute, the issue left open in New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 117 n.2 (2000).

    2. Whether a violation of the Speedy Trial Act's 70-day time limit for bringing a defendant to trial is subject to harmless error analysis, despite the statute's mandatory language stating that, in the event of a violation, the "indictment shall be dismissed."
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Zedner:

    Edward Scott Zas
    New York, NY
    For Respondent United States:
    Paul D. Clement
    U.S. Solicitor General
    Washington, DC


    Wednesday, April 19 Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Pearl Murphy, et vir
    No. 05-18

    Subject:

    Question:
      Does the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA")'s [sic] attorneys' fees shifting provision, 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(3)(B), authorize a court to award "expert" fees to the parents of a child with a disability who is a prevailing party under the IDEA?
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Arlington Central School
    District Board of Education:

    Raymond G. Kuntz
    Kuntz, Spagnuolo, Scapoli & Schiro, P. C.
    Bedford, NY
    For Respondent Murphy :
    David C. Vladeck
    Institute for Public Representation
    Washington, DC


    Eric Michael Clark v. Arizona
    No. 05-5966

    Subject:

      Insanity, Due Process, Fourteenth Amendment, Criminal Law, Evidence
    Questions:
    1. Whether Arizona's insanity law, as set forth in A.R.S. 13-502 (1996) and applied in this case, violated Petitioner's right to due process under the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?

    2. Whether Arizona's blanket exclusion of evidence and refusal to consider mental disease or defect to rebut the state's evidence on the element of mens rea violated Petitioner's right to due process under the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Clark:

    David Goldberg
    Flagstaff, AZ
    For Respondent Arizona :
    Michael T. O'Toole
    Assistant Attorney General
    Phoenix, AZ


    Monday, April 24 Brigham City, Utah v. Charles W. Stuart
    No. 05-502

    Subject:

      Warrantless Searches, Emergency Aid Exception, Fourth Amendment, Criminal Law
    Questions:
    1. Does the "emergency aid exception" to the warrant requirement recognized in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), turn on an officer's subjective motivation for entering the home?

    2. Was the gravity of the "emergency" or "exigency" sufficient to justify, under the Fourth Amendment, the officers' entry into the home to stop the fight?
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties
      Merits Phase
    Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Brigham City:

    Mark L. Shurtleff
    Attorney General of Utah
    Salt Lake City, UT
    For Respondent Stuart:
    Michael Patrick Studebaker
    Michael P. Studebaker LLC
    Ogden, UT


    Carl Kircher, et al. v. Putnam Funds Trust, et al.
    No. 05-409

    Subject:

      Class Actions, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
    Question:
      Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction, contrary to the holdings of three other circuits, to review a district court order remanding for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction a suit removed under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. 1447(d)'s bar on appellate review of remand orders based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the district courts' conclusion that petitioners' claims are not preempted by and thus not removable under SLUSA.
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet -From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Kircher:

    David C. Frederick
    Washington, DC
    For Respondent Putnam Funds Trust:
    Mark A. Perry
    Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
    Washington, DC


    Tuesday, April 25 Keshia Cherie Ashford Dixon v. United States
    No. 05-7053

    Subject:

      Duress, Burden of Persuasion, Criminal Law
    Question:
      Where a criminal defendant raises a duress defense, whether the burden of persuasion should be on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was not under duress, or upon the defendant to prove duress by a preponderance of the evidence.
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties
      Merits Phase

    Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Dixon:

    J. Craig Jett
    Hunt & Doss
    Lake City, FL
    For Respondent U.S.:
    Paul D. Clement
    U.S. Solicitor General
    Washington, DC


    Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., dba Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield v. Denise F. McVeigh
    No. 05-200

    Subject:

      Federal Question Jurisdiction, Government Contractors, Federal Employees Health Benefits Act
    Question:
      Whether federal question jurisdiction exists over a suit by a federal government contractor to enforce, on behalf of the United States, a provision in a health benefits plan for federal employees that is part of a government contract established pursuant to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act.
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Empire Healthchoice Assurance:

    Anthony F. Shelley
    Miller & Chevalier, Chartered
    Washington, DC
    For Respondent McVeigh:
    Harry Raptakis
    Mineola, NY


    Wednesday, April 26 Clarence E. Hill v. James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
    No. 05-8794

    Subject:

      Death Penalty, Lethal Injection, Eighth Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Civil Rights, Habeas Corpus
    Questions:
    1. Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the chemicals utilized for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254?

    2. Whether, under the Supreme Court's decision in Nelson, a challenge to a particular protocol the State plans to use during the execution process constitutes a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983?
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Hill:

    D. Todd Doss
    Hunt & Doss
    Lake City, FL
    For Respondent McDonough:
    Carolyn M. Snurkowski
    Assistant Deputy
    Attorney General
    Tallahassee, FL


    Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Shirley Williams
    No. 05-465

    Subject:

      Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Enterprise, Corporations, Illegal Workers, Labor & Employment Law, Workers' Compensation Law
    Questions:
      Whether a defendant corporation and its agents can constitute an "enterprise" under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 ("RICO"), in light of the settled rule that a RICO defendant must "conduct" or "participate in" the affairs of some larger enterprise and not just its own affairs.
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Mohawk Indus., Inc.:

    Carter G. Phillips
    Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
    Washington, DC
    For Respondent Williams:
    Howard W. Foster
    Johnson & Bell Ltd.
    Chicago, IL



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

     

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