US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

[Download December 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2004 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
Monday, December 5

Terry L. Whitman v. Department of Transportation, et al.
No. 04-1131

Subject:

Civil Service Reform Act

Questions:

1. Whether 5 U.S.C. 7121(a)'s provision that the negotiated grievance procedures of a federal collective bargaining agreement be "the exclusive administrative procedures" to resolve grievances precludes an employee from seeking direct judicial redress when he would otherwise have an independent basis for judicial review of his claims.
   
   
2. Whether the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq., precludes federal courts from granting equitable relief for constitutional claims brought by federal employees against their employer.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit Opinion Filed: August 30, 2004
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 27, 2005

Resources:

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

Briefs:

    Parties

[Coming Soon]

Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Whitman:

Thomas C. Goldstein
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC

For Respondents Department of
    Transportation, et al.:

Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC

Bertram Rice, Warden, et al. v. Steven Martell Collins
No. 04-52

Subject:

Question:

28 U.S.C. 2254

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit Opinion Filed: November 7, 2003
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 18, 2006

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

• [Coming Soon]

Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Rice, et al.:

Erika D. Jackson
Deputy Attorney General
Los Angeles, CA

For Respondent Collins:

Mark R. Drozdowski
Deputy Federal Public Defender
Los Angeles, CA

Tuesday, December 6

Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., et al.
No. 04-1152

Subject:

Solomon Amendment

Question:

Solomon Amendment

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 3rd Circuit Opinion Filed: November 29, 2004
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 2, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 6, 2006

Resources:

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

Briefs:

    Parties

Merits Phase
• Petitioners [TEXT]
• Respondents (2.7 MB)
• Joint Appendix [TEXT]
• Petitioners - Reply [TEXT]

Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Rumsfeld, et al.:

Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC

For Respondents Forum for Academic and
    Institutional Rights, Inc., et al.:

E. Joshua Rosenkranz
Heller Ehrman LLP
New York, NY

Domino's Pizza, Inc., et al. v. John McDonald
No. 04-593

Subject:

42 U.S.C. 1981

Question:

42 U.S.C. 1981

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Unpublished Opinion Filed: June 18, 2004 (From Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism)
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 25, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 22, 2006

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioners
• Respondent

Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Domino's Pizza, Inc., et al.:

Maureen E. Mahoney
Latham & Watkins LLP
Washington, DC

For Respondent McDonald:

Allen Lichtenstein
Las Vegas, NV

Wednesday, December 7

Oregon v. Randy Lee Guzek
No. 04-928

Subject:

Question:

Decisions:

• Oregon Supreme Court, Opinion Filed: March 4, 2004
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 25, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 22, 2006

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioner
• Respondent
• Petitioner - Reply

Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Oregon:

Mary H. Williams
State Solicitor General
Salem, OR

For Respondent Guzek:

Richard L. Wolf
Portland, OR

Kansas v. Michael Lee Marsh, II
No. 04-1170

Subject:

Questions:

1. Does it violate the Constitution for a state capital sentencing statute to provide for the imposition of the death penalty when the sentencing jury determines that the mitigating and aggravating evidence is in equipoise?
   
   
2. Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257, as construed by Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)?
   
   
3. Was the Kansas Supreme Court's judgment adequately supported by a ground independent of federal law?

Decisions:

• Kansas Supreme Court, Opinion Filed: December 17, 2004
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 31, 2005

Resources:

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

Briefs:

    Parties

Merits Phase
• Petitioners
• Respondent
• Petitioners - Reply

Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Kansas:

Jared Scoville Maag
Deputy Attorney General
Topeka, KS

For Respondent Marsh:

Rebecca E. Woodman
Capital Appellate Defender Office
Topeka, KS

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