June Carabell, et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
No. 04-1384
Subject:
Rapanos, et al. v. United States, No. 04-1034Decisions:Carabell, et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al., No. 04-1384
- Does the Clean Water Act prohibition on unpermitted discharges to "navigable waters" extend to nonnavigable wetlands that do not even abut a navigable water?
- Does extension of Clean Water Act jurisdiction to every intrastate wetland with any sort of hydrological connection to navigable waters, no matter how tenuous or remote the connection, exceed Congress' constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states?
- Does the Clean Water Act extend to wetlands that are hydrologically isolated from any of the "waters of the United States?"
- Do the limits on Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce preclude an interpretation of the Clean Water Act that would extend federal authority to wetlands that are hydrologically isolated from any of the "waters of the United States?"
Resources:
M. Reed HopperFor Petitioners Carabell, et al.:
Pacific Legal Foundation
Sacramento, CA
Timothy A. StoepkerFor Respondent United States:
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Detroit, MI
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
S.D. Warren Company v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection
No. 04-1527
Subject:
Resources:
Matthew D. ManahanFor Respondent Maine Bd. of Env. Protection:
Pierce Atwood Portland, ME
Carol Blasi
Assistant Attorney General
Augusta, ME
Donald Curtis Samson v. California
No. 04-9728
Subject:
Resources:
Robert A. Long Jr.For Respondent California:
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC
Ronald E. Niver
Deputy Attorney General
San Francisco, CA
Bobby Lee Holmes v. South Carolina
No. 04-1327
Subject:
Resources:
William A. NorrisFor Respondent South Carolina:
Akin Gump
Los Angeles, CA
Donald John Zelenka
Deputy Attorney General
Columbia, SC
Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Heidi
Ahlborn
No. 04-1506
Subject:
Resources:
Lori L. Freno-EngmanFor Respondent Ahlborn:
Deputy Attorney General
Little Rock, AR
Herbert David Blair
Blair & Stroud
Batesville, AR
Patrick Day v. James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of
Corrections
No. 04-1324
Subject:
Resources:
J. Brett BusbyFor Respondent McDonough:
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
Houston, TX
Charles R. McCoy
Deputy Attorney General
Tallahassee, FL
Neil Randall, et al. v. William H. Sorrell, et al.
No. 04-1528
Vermont Republican State Committee, et al. v. William H. Sorrell, et
al.
No. 04-1530
William H. Sorrell, et al. v. Neil Randall, et al.
No. 04-1697
Subject:
Randall, et al. v. Sorrell, et al., No. 04-1528Decisions:VT Republican State Comm., et al. v. Sorrell, et al., No. 04-1530
- Whether Vermont's mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the First Amendment and this Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
- Whether Vermont's treatment of independent expenditures by political parties and committees as presumptively coordinated if they benefit fewer than six candidates, and thereby subject to strict contribution and expenditure limits, is consistent with the First Amendment and this Court's decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 518 U.S. 604 (1996).
- Whether Vermont's contribution limits, which are the lowest in the country, which allow only a single maximum contribution in an entire two-year general election cycle, and which prohibit even state political parties from contributing more than $400 to their gubernatorial candidate, fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold and should be struck down.
Sorrell, et al. v. Randall, et al., No. 04-1697
- Whether Vermont's mandatory candidate expenditure limits violate the freedom of political speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
- Whether Vermont's $200-$400 limits per election cycle on campaign contributions to state candidates violate the freedoms of political speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because they are unconstitutionally low.
B- Whether Vermont's presumption of coordination, which provides that an expenditure made by a political party or political committee that primarily benefits six or fewer candidates is presumed to be a related expenditure subject to contribution limits, violates the freedoms of political speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Whether Vermont's mandatory limits on campaign expenditures by candidates for public office are constitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Resources:
Mitchell L. PearlFor VT Republican State Comm., et al.:
Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP
Middlebury, VT
James Bopp Jr.For William H. Sorrell, et al.:
Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom
Terre Haute, IN
Timothy B. Tomasi
Deputy Attorney General
Montpelier, VT
Vickie Lynn Marshall v. E. Pierce Marshall
No. 04-1544
Subject:
Resources:
Kent L. RichlandFor Respondent E.P. Marshall:
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, LLP
Los Angeles, CA
George Eric Brunstad Jr.
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Hartford, CT
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader