Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

November 2005
[Download November 1-9, 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Download November 28-30, 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2004 Docket] Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
Tuesday, November 1 Maryland v. Leeander Jerome Blake
No. 04-373

Subject:

    Fifth Amendment, Right To Counsel
Question:
    When a police officer improperly communicates with a suspect after invocation of the suspect's right to counsel, does Edwards permit consideration of curative measures by the police, or other intervening circumstances, to conclude that a suspect later initiated communication with the police?
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 Maryland:

Kathryn Grill Graeff
Asst. State Attorney General
Baltimore, MD
For Respondent Blake:
Kenneth W. Ravenell
Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow,
    Gilden & Ravenvell
Baltimore, MD


Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (UDV), et al.
No. 04-1084

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., requires the government to permit the importation, distribution, possession, and use of a Schedule I hallucinogenic controlled substance, where Congress has found that the substance has a high potential for abuse, it is unsafe for use even under medical supervision, and its importation and distribution would violate an international treaty.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Gonzales, et al.:

Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondents UDV, et al.:
Nancy Hollander
Freedman Boyd Daniels
    Hollander & Goldberg, P.A.
Albuquerque, NM


Wednesday, November 2

Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., dba Conagra Refrigerated Foods
No. 04-597

Subject:

    Sufficiency of Evidence, Motions for Judgment
Question:
    Whether, and to what extent, a court of appeals may review the sufficiency of evidence supporting a civil jury verdict where the party requesting review made a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before submission of the case to the jury, but neither renewed that motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury's verdict, nor moved for a new trial under Rule 59?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Unitherm Food Sys, Inc.:

Burck Bailey
Bailey & Tippens
Oklahoma City, OK
For Respondents Swift-Eckrich, Inc., et al.:
Robert A. Schroeder
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Los Angeles, CA


James Lockhart v. United States, et al.
No. 04-881

Subject:

    Social Security Act, Debt Collection Improvement Act, Higher Education Act, Student Loans
Question:
    Do the Social Security Act and the Debt Collection Improvement Act bar the United States from withholding social security benefits to collect student loan debt that has been outstanding for more than ten years, as the Eighth Circuit has held, or does the Higher Education Act eliminate any such bar, as the Ninth Circuit held below?
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 Lockhart:

Brian Wolfman
Public Citizen Litigation Group
Washington, DC
For Respondents United States, et al.:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC


Monday, November 7

Barbara Dolan v. United States Postal Service, et al.
No. 04-848

Subject:

    Jursidiction, Supreme Court Supervisory Power, Federal Tort Claims Act
Question:
    Does not this case—which involved a determination of whether the district court had jurisdiction over the claim of plaintiff when her injury was caused by the negligent placement of mail at the place of delivery —call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power where there is a dispute between the circuits of the Court of Appeals as to whether the exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U .S.C. 2680 (b) barred this lawsuit and where the Third Circuit narrowly construed the Act?
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 Dolan:

James R. Radmore
Philadelphia, PA
For Respondents United States Postal Service, et al.:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC


Tuesday, November 8

Gerald T. Martin, et ux. v. Franklin Capital Corporation, et al.
No. 04-1140

Subject:

    Removal Jurisdiction, Remand to State Court, Fees and Expenses
Question:
    What legal standard governs the decision whether to award fees and expenses under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) upon remanding a removed case to state court?
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 Martin, et ux.:

Samuel H. Heldman
Gardner, Middlebrooks
Washington, DC
For Respondents Franklin Capital Corp., et al.:
Jan T. Chilton
Severson & Werson
San Francisco, CA


Georgia v. Scott Fitz Randolph
No. 04-1067

Subject:

    Fourth Amendment, Consent to Search Shared Premises, Criminal Law
Question:
    Should this Court grant certiorari to resolve the conflict among federal and state courts on whether an occupant may give law enforcement valid consent to search the common areas of the premises shared with another, even though the other occupant is present and objects to the search?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties
    [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Georgia:

Paula K. Smith
Senior Ass't Attorney General
Atlanta, GA
For Respondent Randolph:
Thomas C. Goldstein
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC


Wednesday, November 9

United States v. Georgia, et al.
No. 04-1203

Goodman v. Georgia, et al.
No. 04-1236

Subject:

Questions:
    United States v. Georgia, et al., No. 04-1203
    Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12131 to 12165, is a proper exercise of Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as applied to the administration of prison systems.
    Tony Goodman v. Georgia, et al., No. 04-1236
    Whether, and to what extent, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq., validly abrogates state sovereign immunity for suits by prisoners with disabilities challenging discrimination by state-operated prisons, a question on which the courts of appeals are in conflict.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet - No. 04-1203 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet - No. 04-1236 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
    [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner United States:

Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Petitioner Goodman:
Drew S. Days III
Morrison & Foerster
Washington, DC
For Respondents Georgia, et al.:
David E. Langford
Assistant Attorney General
Atlanta, GA


Mike Evans, Acting Warden v. Reginald Chavis
No. 04-721

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus, Unreasonable Delay, Statute of Limitations, Tolling, Criminal Law
Question:
    Did the Ninth Circuit contravene this Court's decision in Carey v. Saffold when it held that a prisoner who delayed more than three years before filing a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court did not "unreasonably" delay in filing the petition -- and therefore was entitled to tolling during that entire period -- because the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition without comment or citation, which the Ninth Circuit construes as a denial "on the merits"?
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 Evans:

Catherine Chatman
Deputy Attorney General
Sacramento, CA
For Respondent Chavis:
Peter K. Stris
Willenken Wilson Loh & Stris LLP
Los Angeles, CA


Monday, November 28

Richard Will, et al. v. Susan Hallock, et al.
No. 04-1332

Subject:

Questions:
  1. Whether a final judgment in an action brought under Section 1346(b) dismissing the claim on the ground that relief is precluded by one of the FTCA's exceptions to liability, 28 U .S.C. 2680, bars a subsequent action by the claimant against the federal employees whose acts gave rise to the FTCA claim.

  2. Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal of the District Court's order denying a motion to dismiss under the FTCA's judgment bar, 28 U.S.C. 2676?
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 Will, et al:

Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondents Hallock, et al.:
Allison M. Zieve
Public Citizen Litigation Group
Washington, DC


Wachovia Bank, National Association v. Daniel G. Schmidt, III, et al.
No. 04-1186

Subject:

    Diversity Jurisdiction, National Banking Association, Citizenship, "Located"
Questions:
  1. Whether, for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a national banking association is "located" in, and thus deemed to be a citizen of, every state in which the association maintains a branch, as held by the court below, or instead has a more limited citizenship, as held by three other courts of appeals.

  2. Whether the word "located," as used in 28 U.S.C. 1348, is ambiguous.
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 Wachovia Bank:

Andrew Lewis Frey
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondents Daniel G. Schmidt, III, et al.:
James R. Gilreath
The Gilreath Law Firm, P.A.
Greenville, SC


Tuesday, November 29

Illinois Tool Works Inc., et al. v. Independent Ink, Inc.
No. 04-1329

Subject:

Question:
    Whether, in an action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, alleging that the defendant engaged in unlawful tying by conditioning a patent license on the licensee's purchase of a non-patented good, the plaintiff must prove as part of its affirmative case that the defendant possessed market power in the relevant market for the tying product, or market power instead is presumed based solely on the existence of the patent on the tying product.
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 Illinois Tool Works Inc., et al.:

Andrew J. Pincus
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Independent Ink, Inc:
Edward F. O'Connor
O'Connor Christensen & McLaughlin LLP
Irvine, CA


Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. John Cardegna, et al.
No. 04-1264

Subject:

    Federal Arbitration Act, Contracts
Question:
    Whether the Florida Supreme Court erred by holding, consistent with the Alabama Supreme Court but in direct conflict with six federal courts of appeals, that the Federal Arbitration Act allows a party to avoid arbitration by claiming that the underlying contract containing an arbitration clause (but not the arbitration clause itself) is void for illegality.
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 Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc:

Christopher Landau
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondents Cardegna, et al.:
F. Paul Bland
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C.
Washington, DC


Wednesday, November 30

Joseph Scheidler, et al. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.
No. 04-1244

Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.
No. 04-1352

Subject:

Questions:

Scheidler v. NOW, Inc., et al., No. 04-1244
  1. Whether the Seventh Circuit, on remand, disregarded this Court's mandate by holding that "all" of the predicate acts supporting the jurys finding of a RICO violation were not reversed, that the "judgment that petitioners violated RICO" was not necessarily reversed, and that the "injunction issued by the District Court" might not need to be vacated.

  2. Whether the Seventh Circuit correctly held, in conflict with decisions of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, that the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), can be read to punish acts or threats of physical violence against "any person or property" in a manner that "in any way or degree * * * affects commerce," even if such acts or threats of violence are wholly unconnected to either extortion or robbery.

  3. Whether this Court should again grant certiorari to resolve the deep and important intercircuit conflict over whether injunctive relief is available in a private civil action for treble damages brought under RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c).
Operation Rescue v. NOW, Inc., et al., No. 04-1352
  1. Does the Seventh Circuit's defiance of this Court's mandate merit summary reversal?

  2. Did the Seventh Circuit err by ruling, in conflict with the Ninth Circuit, and in conflict with the official position of the Department of Justice, that private civil litigants may obtain injunctive relief under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute?

  3. Did the Seventh Circuit err by ruling, in conflict with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, and in conflict with the official position of the Department of Justice, that the federal Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, may plausibly be construed to prohibit, without any connection to robbery or extortion, any act or threat of "physical violence to any person or property" that "in any way or degree. .. affects commerce"?
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet - No. 04-1244 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet - No. 04-1352 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Scheidler, et al.:

Alan Edward Untereiner
Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner, LLP
Washington, DC
For Petitioner Operation Rescue:
Jay Alan Sekulow
American Center for Law & Justice
Washington, DC
For Respondents NOW, Inc., et al.:
Erwin Chemerinsky
Duke University School of Law
Durham, NC


Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al.
No. 04-1144

Subject:

Questions:
  1. Did the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals apply the correct standard in a facial challenge to a statute regulating abortion when it ruled that the undue burden standard cited in Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 876-77 (1992) and Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 921 (2000) applied rather than the "no set of circumstances" standard set forth in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)?

  2. Whether the New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 132:24-28 (2003) preserves the health and life of the minor through the Act's judicial bypass mechanism and/or other state statutes.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties

    Amicus - Supporting Petitioner

    Amicus - Supporting Respondents Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Ayotte:

Daniel J. Mullen
Associate Attorney General
Concord, NH
For Respondents Planned Parenthood
    of Northern New England, et al.:
Jennifer E. Dalven
American Civil Liberties Union
New York, NY


 

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

 

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

Was this helpful?

Response sent, thank you

Copied to clipboard