Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

March 2006
[Download March 2006 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2004 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
Wednesday, March 1 DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Charlotte Cuno, et al.
No. 04-1704

William W. Wilkins, Tax Commissioner for the State of Ohio, et al. v. Charlotte Cuno, et al.
No. 04-1724

Subject:

    Commerce Clause, Ohio's Investment Tax Credit, Standing
Questions:

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, et al., No. 04-1704
  1. Whether Ohio's investment tax credit, Ohio Revised Code 5733.33, which seeks to encourage economic development by providing a credit to taxpayers who install new manufacturing machinery and equipment in the State, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

  2. Whether respondents have standing to challenge Ohios investment tax credit, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 5733.33
Wilkins, et al. v. Cuno, et al., No. 04-1724
  1. Does the dormant Commerce Clause allow a State to attempt to attract new business investment in the State by offering credits against the State's general corporate franchise or income tax, where the amount of the credit is based on the amount of a business's new investment in the State?

  2. Whether respondents have standing to challenge Ohios investment tax credit, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 5733.33
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet - No. 04-1704 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet - No. 04-1724 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:

    Parties
    [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner DaimlerChrysler:

Theodore B. Olson
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Washington, DC
For Petitioners Wilkins, et al.:
Douglas R. Cole
State Solicitor General
Columbus, OH
For Respondents Cuno, et al.:
Terry J. Lodge
Toledo, OH


Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County, Georgia
No. 04-1618

Subject:

    Eleventh Amendment, "Arm of the State," Sovereign Immunity, Admiralty
Question:
    Whether an entity that does not qualify as an "arm of the State" for Eleventh Amendment purposes can nonetheless assert sovereign immunity as a defense to an admiralty suit?
Decisions:
    U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Unpublished Opinion Filed: January 28, 2005
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 11, 2005
  • United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 25, 2006

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 Northern Ins. Co. of NY:

Miguel A. Estrada
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Chatam Co., GA:
Emily Elizabeth Garrard
Chatham Co. Attorney's Office
Savannah, GA


League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-204

Travis County, Texas, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-254

Eddie Jackson, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-276

GI Forum of Texas, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-439

Subject:

    Texas Congressional Redistricting, Gerrymandering, Minority Vote Dilution, Equal Protection, First Amendment, Voting Rights Act
Questions:

League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-204
  1. Whether the 2003 Texas Congressional Redistricting Plan (Plan 1374C), adopted and developed using outdated, inaccurate 2000 Census data and resulting in malapportioned districts, in violation of one person, one vote when measured against 2003 Census data, and when "the single-minded purpose of the Texas Legislature in enacting Plan 1374C was to gain partisan advantage" and when such purpose is realized, is an unconstitutional political gerrymander.

  2. Whether proof of racially polarized voting is overcome by evidence of partisan affiliation of minority voters in the analysis of the second prong of Gingles in a minority vote dilution claim.
Travis Co., TX, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-254
    Does the Texas legislature's 2003 replacement of a legally valid congressional districting plan with a statewide plan, enacted for "the singleminded purpose" of gaining partisan advantage, satisfy the stringent constitutional rule of equipopulous districts by relying on the 2000 decennial census and the fiction of inter-censal population accuracy?
Jackson, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-276
  1. Whether the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment prohibit States from redrawing lawful districting plans in the middle of the decade, for the sole purpose of maximizing partisan advantage.

  2. Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act permits a State to destroy a district effectively controlled by African-American voters, merely because it is impossible to draw a district in which African-Americans constitute an absolute mathematical majority of the population.

  3. Whether, under Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996), a bizarre-looking congressional district, which was intentionally drawn as a majority-Latino district by connecting two far-flung pockets of dense urban population with a 300-mile-long rural "land bridge," may escape invalidation as a racial gerrymander because drawing a compact majority-Latino district would have required the mapmakers to compromise their political goal of maximizing Republican seats elsewhere in the State.
GI Forum of Texas, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-439
  1. Whether political partisanship is sufficient justification, under section 2 and the Constitution, for dismantling a Latino-majority congressional district in order to elect the Anglo-preferred candidate.

  2. Whether section 2 permits a state to eliminate a majority-minority district located in one area of the state and create another majority-minority district in a different area of the state.

  3. Whether the District Court erred by requiring section 2 demonstrative districts to be more compact and to offer greater electoral opportunity to minority voters than the corresponding districts in the challenged redistricting plan.

  4. Whether the number of majority-minority districts that can be created in the state functions as the upper limit of permissible political opportunity when assessing proportionality under Johnson v. DeGrandy.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Background Materials On Texas Redistricting Controversy
  • Docket Sheet - No. 05-204 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet - No. 05-254 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet - No. 05-276 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet - No. 05-439 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Appellants LULAC, et al.:

Rolando L. Rios
San Antonio, TX
For Appellants Travis Co., et al.:
Renea Hicks
Austin, TX
For Appellants Jackson, et al.:
Paul M. Smith
Jenner & Block, LLP
Washington, DC
For Appellants GI Forum, et al.:
Nina Perales
MALDEF
San Antonio, TX
For Appellees Perry, et al.:
R. Ted Cruz
State Solicitor General
Austin, TX


Monday, March 20

Adrian Martell Davis v. Washington
No. 05-5224

Subject:

    Sixth Amendment, Confrontation Clause, Evidence, Excited Utterance, Hearsay, Criminal Law
Question:
    Whether an alleged victim's statements to a 911 operator naming her assailant - admitted as "excited utterances" under a jurisdiction's hearsay law - constitute "testimonial" statements subject to the Confrontation Clause restrictions enunciated in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
Decisions:

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 Davis:

Jeffrey L. Fisher
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Seattle, WA
For Respondent Washington:
James M. Whisman
Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Seattle, WA


Hershel Hammon v. Indiana
No. 05-5705

Subject:

    Sixth Amendment, Confrontation Clause, Oral Accusation, Testimonial Statement, Criminal Law
Question:
    Whether an oral accusation made to an investigating officer at the scene of an alleged crime is a testimonial statement within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet - No. 04-1327 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
    [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Hammon:

Richard D. Friedman
Ann Arbor, MI
For Respondent Indiana:
Thomas M. Fisher
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, IN


Tuesday, March 21

Howard Delivery Service, Inc., et al. v. Zurich American Insurance Co.
No. 05-128

Subject:

    Bankruptcy, Unsecured Claim for Unpaid Premiums, Workers' Compensation Insurance, Priority
Question:
    In a bankruptcy case, is an unsecured claim for unpaid premiums owing for a debtor's statutory workers' compensation liability insurance policy entitled to priority under Section 507(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code as a "contribution to an employee benefit plan arising from services rendered", as held by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, or is such a claim not entitled to Section 507(a)(4) priority, as held by the Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits?
Decisions:

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 Howard Delivery Serv.:

Richard M. Francis
Bowles Rice McDavid
    Graff & Love LLP
Charleston, WV
For Respondent Zurich Am. Ins. Co.:
Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
Jenner & Block LLP
Washington, DC


Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., et al.
No. 04-607

Subject:

    Patents, Monopoly Over Scientific Relationships
Question:
    Whether a method patent setting forth an indefinite, undescribed, and non-enabling step directing a party simply to "correlat[e]" test results can validly claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship used in medical treatment such that any doctor necessarily infringes the patent merely by thinking about the relationship after looking at a test result.
Decisions:

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 LabCorp:

Jonathan Saul Franklin
Hogan & Hartson LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Metabolite Labs:
Glenn K. Beaton
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Denver, CO


Gil Garcetti, et al. v. Richard Ceballos
No. 04-473

Subject:

    Public Employees, Job-Related Speech, First Amendment
Questions:
  1. Should a public employee's purely job-related speech, expressed strictly pursuant to the duties of employment, be cloaked with First Amendment protection simply because it touches on a matter of public concern, or should First Amendment protection also require the speech to be engaged in "as a citizen", in accordance with this Court's holdings in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)?

  2. Is immediate review by this Court necessary to address the growing inter-circuit conflict on the question of whether a public employee's purely job-related speech is constitutionally protected, especially where the lack of uniformity dramatically impacts the ability of all public employers to effectively manage their respective agencies?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Garcetti, et al.:

Cindy S. Lee
Franscell Strickland Roberts & Lawrence
Glendale, CA
For Respondent Ceballos:
Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer
Public Citizen Litigation Group
Washington, DC


Wednesday, March 22

Humberto Fernandez-Vargas v. Alberto R. Gonzales
No. 04-1376

Subject:

    Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Illegal Aliens, Immigration Law
Question:
    Whether and under what circumstances INA 241 (a)(5) applies to an alien who reentered the United States illegally before the effective date of IIRIRA, April 1, 1997.
Decisions:

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 Fernandez-Vargas:

David M. Gossett
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Gonzales:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC


Jeanne S. Woodford, et al. v. Viet Mike Ngo
No. 05-416

Subject:

    Prison Litigation Reform Act, Exhaustion of Remedies, Administrative Appeals
Question:
    Does a prisoner satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act's administrative exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative appeal?
Decisions:

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 Petitioners Woodford, et al.:

Jennifer G. Perkell
Deputy Attorney General
San Francisco, CA
For Respondent Ngo:
Meir Feder
Jones Day
New York, NY


Monday, March 27

U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Unpublished Opinion Filed: July 2, 2004 (From Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism)

  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: November 28, 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 Petitioners Anza, et al.:

    Richard L. Huffman
    Fox Horan & Camerini LLP
    New York, NY
    For Respondent Ideal Steel Supply Corp:
    Kevin P. Roddy
    Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer
    Woodbridge, NJ


    Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Ronald Banks
    No. 04-1739

    Subject:

      First Amendment, Prisons, Prisoner Rights, Newspapers, Magazines, Photographs
    Question:
      Does a prison policy that denies newspapers, magazines, and photographs to the most difficult inmates in the prison system in an effort to promote security and good behavior violate the First Amendment under the standards of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1984) and Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003)?
    Decisions:

    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 Beard:

    Louis J. Rovelli
    Exec. Deputy Attorney General
    Harrisburg, PA
    For Respondent Banks:
    Jere Krakoff
    Stember Feinstein
    Pittsburgh, PA


    Tuesday, March 28

    Joel Sereboff, et ux. v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
    No. 05-260

    Subject:

      Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Tort Damages, Reimbursement, Equitable Relief
    Question:
      Can a plan fiduciary bring a civil action against a plan participant to obtain "appropriate equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), where a term of the plan requires the participant to reimburse medical expenses advanced by the plan if the participant recovers money from a third-party tortfeasor and possesses such payments in an identifiable fund?
    Decisions:

    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 Petitioners Sereboff, et ux.:

    Peter K. Stris
    Whittier Law School
    Costa Mesa, CA
    For Respondent Mid Atlantic Med. Servs:
    Gregory Scott Coleman
    Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
    Austin, TX


    Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al.
    No. 05-184

    Subject:

    Questions:
    1. Whether the military commission established by the President to try petitioner and others similarly situated for alleged war crimes in the "war on terror" is duly authorized under Congress's Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224; the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); or the inherent powers of the President?

    2. Whether petitioner and others similarly situated can obtain judicial enforcement from an Article III court of rights protected under the 1949 Geneva Convention in an action for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of their detention by the Executive branch?
    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 Hamdan:

    Neal Katyal
    Washington, DC
    For Respondents Rumsfeld, et al.:
    Paul D. Clement
    U.S. Solicitor General
    Washington, DC


    Wednesday, March 29

    Moises Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
    No. 04-10566

    Mario A. Bustillo v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
    No. 05-51

    Subject:

      Foreign Detainees, Vienna Convention, Rights of Consular Notification, Suppression of Evidence, Treaties
    Questions:

    Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, No. 04-10566
    1. Does the Vienna Convention convey individual rights of consular notification and access to a foreign detainee enforceable in the Courts of the United States?

    2. Does the state's failure to notify a foreign detainee of his rights under the Vienna Convention result in the suppression of his statements to police?
    Bustillo v. Johnson, No. 05-51
      Whether, contrary to the International Court of Justice's interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 100-101, state courts may refuse to consider violations of Article 36 of that treaty because of a procedural bar or because the treaty does not create individually enforceable rights.
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - No. 04-10566 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Docket Sheet - No. 05-51 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties
      [Coming Soon]
    Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Sanchez-Llamas:

    Peter Gartlan
    Office of Public Defense Services
    Salem, OR
    For Respondent Oregon:
    Mary H. Williams
    State Solicitor General
    Salem, OR
    For Petitioner Bustillo:
    Jeffrey A. Lamken
    Baker Botts LLP
    Washington, DC
    For Respondent Johnson:
    William E. Thro
    State Solicitor General
    Richmond, VA


    eBay Inc., et al. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
    No. 05-130

    Subject:

      Patent Infringement, Permanent Injunctions
    Questions:
    1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in setting forth a general rule in patent cases that a district court must, absent exceptional circumstances, issue a permanent injunction after a finding of infringement.

    2. Whether this Court should reconsider its precedents, including Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908), on when it is appropriate to grant an injunction against a patent infringer.
    Decisions:

    Resources:

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

    Briefs:

        Parties
    Was this helpful?

    Copied to clipboard