Skip to main content
For Legal Professionals
Find a Lawyer
...

US Supreme Court Docket

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

November 2006
[Download October 30, 2006 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Download November 27, 2006 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2005 Docket] Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
Wednesday, November 1 Environmental Defense, et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation
No. 05-848

Subject:

    Clean Air Act, Environmental Law, Administrative Law, Utilities
Questions:
  1. Whether the Fourth Circuit's decision violated Section 307(b) of the Act, which provides that national Clean Air Act regulations are subject to challenge "only" in the D.C. Circuit by petition for review filed within 60 days of their promulgation, and "shall not be subject to judicial review" in enforcement proceedings, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b); and

  2. Whether the Act's definition of "modification," which turns on whether there is an "increase" in emissions and which applies to both the NSPS and PSD programs, rendered unlawful EPA's longstanding regulatory test defining PSD "increases" by reference to actual, annual emissions.
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 Environmental Defense:

Sean H. Donahue
Washington, DC
For Respondent Duke Energy Corporation:
F. William Brownell
Hunton & Williams LLP
Washington, DC


Glen Whorton, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections v. Marvin Howard Bockting
No. 05-595

Subject:

    Sixth Amendment, Testimonial Hearsay, Retroactivity
Question:
  1. Whether, in direct conflict with the published opinions of the Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that this court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) regarding the admissibility of testimonial hearsay evidence under the Sixth Amendment, applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.

  2. Whether the Ninth Circuit's ruling that Crawford applies retroactively to cases on collateral review violates this court' ruling in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).

  3. Whether, in direct conflict with the published decisions of the Fourth and Seventh Circuits, the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) and (2) adopted the Teague exceptions for private conduct which is beyond criminal proscription and watershed rules.
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 Glen Whorton, Director,
Nevada Department of Corrections:

Gerald J. Gardner
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Las Vegas, NV
For Respondent Marvin Howard Bockting:
Franny A. Forsman
Federal Public Defender for District of Nevada
Reno, NV


Monday, November 6

Robert Louis Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, et al.
No. 05-996

Subject:

    Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, Chapter 13, Bad Faith
Question:
    Whether the right to convert a chapter 7 bankruptcy case to another chapter can be denied notwithstanding the plain language of the statute and the legislative history.
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 Robert Louis Marrama:

David G. Baker
Boston, MA
For Respondent Mark G. DeGiacomo,
Chapter 7 Trustee:
Mark G. DeGiacomo
Boston, MA


Andre Wallace v. Chicago Police Officers Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy
No. 05-1240

Subject:

    4th Amendment, False Arrest, Statute of Limitations, Criminal Law
Question:
    When does a claim for damages arising out of a false arrest or other search or seizure forbidden by the Fourth Amendment accrue when the fruits of the search were introduced in the claimants criminal trial and he was convicted?
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 Andre Wallace:

Kenneth N. Flaxman
Chicago, IL
For Respondents United States, et al.:
Benna R. Solomon
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Chicago, IL


Tuesday, November 7

Alphonso James, Jr. v. United States
No. 05-9264

Subject:

    Armed Career Criminal Act, Sentence Enhancements, Violent Felonies, Attempted Burglary
Question:
    Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred by holding that all convictions in Florida for attempted burglary qualify as a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. 924(e), creating a circuit conflict on the issue.
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 James:

Craig L. Crawford
Office of the Federal Public Defender
Orlando, FL
For Respondent United States:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC


Lonnie Lee Burton v. Douglas Waddington, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center
No. 05-9222

Subject:

    Sentencing Enhancement, Apprendi, Blakely, Retroactivity
Question:
  1. Is the holding in Blakely a new rule or is it dictated by Apprendi?

  2. If Blakely is a new rule, does its requirement that facts resulting in an enhanced statutory maximum be proved beyond a reasonable doubt apply retroactively?
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 Lonnie Lee Burton:

Jeffrey L. Fisher
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Seattle, WA
For Respondents Douglas Waddington,
Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center:
John J. Samson
Office of the Attorney General
Olympia, WA


Wednesday, November 8

Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Leroy Carhart, et al.
No. 05-380

Subject:

    Abortion, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, Health Exception
Question:
    Whether, notwithstanding Congress's determination that a health exception was unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is invalid because it lacks a health exception or is otherwise unconstitutional on its face.
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 Gonzales, Attorney General:

Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondents Leroy Carhart, et al.:
Priscilla J. Smith
Center for Reproductive Rights
New York, NY


Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al.
No. 05-1382

Subject:

    Abortion, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Mother's Health Exception
Question:
    Whether, notwithstanding Congress's determination that a health exception was unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is invalid because it lacks a health exception or is otherwise unconstitutional on its face.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Gonzales, Attorney General:

Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondents Planned Parenthood:
Eve C. Gartner
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
New York, NY


Monday, November 27
Bell Atlantic Corporation, et al. v. William Twombly, et al.
No. 05-1126

Subject:

    Telecommunications Law, Antitrust & Trade Law, Conspiracy, Sherman Act
Question:
    Whether a complaint states a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, if it alleges that the defendants engaged in parallel conduct and adds a bald assertion that the defendants were participants in a "conspiracy," without any allegations that, if later proved true, would establish the existence of a conspiracy under the applicable legal standard.
Decisions:

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties
    Merits Phase

    Coming Soon
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Bell Atlantic, et al.:

Michael K. Kellogg
Washington, DC
For Respondents Twombly, et al.:
J. Douglas Richards
Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
New York, NY


Lilly M. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Inc.
No. 05-1074

Subject:

    Title VII, Civil Rights, Pay Discrimination, Statute of Limitations, Labor & Employment Law, Civil Procedure
Question:
    Whether and under what circumstances a plaintiff may bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging illegal pay discrimination when the disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

Parties
    Merits Phase

    Coming Soon
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Ledbetter:

Kevin K. Russell
Howe & Russell, P.C.
Washington, DC
For Respondent Goodyear Tire:
James P. Alexander
Birmingham, AL


Tuesday, November 28
Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Company, Inc.
No. 05-381

Subject:

    Sherman Act, Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Predatory Buying
Question:
    In Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993), the Court held that an antitrust plaintiff alleging predatory selling must prove that the defendant (1) sold its product at a price level too low to cover its costs and (2) had a dangerous probability of recouping its losses once the scheme of predation succeeded.

    The question in this case is whether a plaintiff alleging predatory buying may, as the Ninth Circuit held, establish liability by persuading a jury that the defendant purchased more inputs "than it needed" or paid a higher price for those inputs "than necessary," so as "to prevent the Plaintiffs from obtaining the [inputs] they needed at a fair price"; or whether the plaintiff instead must satisfy what the Ninth Circuit termed the "higher" Brooke Group standard by showing that the defendant (1) paid so much for raw materials that the price at which it sold its products did not coyer its costs and (2) had a dangerous probability of recouping its losses.

Decisions:

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties
    Merits Phase

    Coming Soon
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Weyerhaeuser Company:

Andrew J. Pincus
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Ross-Simmons Hardwood:
Michael E. Haglund
Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones & Wilder LLP
Portland, OR


KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., et al.
No. 04-1350

Subject:

    Patents, Obviousness, Intellectual Property
Question:
    Whether the Federal Circuit has erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held "obvious", and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. lO3(a), in the absence of some proven "'teaching, suggestion, or motivation' that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant prior art teachings in the manner claimed."
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

Parties
    Merits Phase

    Coming Soon
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner KSR International Co.:

James W. Dabney
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP
New York, NY
For Respondents Teleflex, Inc., et al.:
Roger D. Young
Young & Susser
Southfield, MI


Wednesday, November 29
Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
No. 05-1120

Subject:

    Clean Air Act, Air Pollutants, Motor Vehicle Emissions, Emission Standards, Administrative Law, Public Health & Welfare
Questions:
    Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1), requires the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA ") to set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines "which in his judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

    The questions presented are:

    1. Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in section 202(a)(1).
    2. Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under section 202(a)(1).

Decisions:

Resources:

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

Briefs:

Parties
    Merits Phase

    Coming Soon
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Massachusetts, et al.:

James R. Milkey
Boston, MA
For Respondents Michigan, et al.:
Thomas L. Casey
Solicitor General
Office of the Attorney General
Lansing, MI


Linda A. Watters, Commissioner, Michigan Office of Insurance and Financial Services v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al.
No. 05-1342

Subject:

    National Bank Act, Mortgage Lending, National Banks, Banking Law, Federal Preemption, Tenth Amendment
Questions:
  1. 12 USC 484(a) of the National Bank Act limits visitorial powers over "national banks" except as authorized by federal law . National banks are defined and created under the National Bank Act. State-chartered nonbank operating subsidiaries of national banks are created under State corporate law. The Comptroller of the Currency, by Rule 12 CFR 7.4006, made 12 USC 484(a) equally applicable to State-chartered nonbank "operating subsidiaries" of national banks. Is the interpretation of the Comptroller of the Currency that 12 CFR 7.4006 preempts Michigan's laws regulating mortgage lending as applied to State chartered nonbank operating subsidiaries, entitled to judicial deference under Chevron USA, Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 US 837 (1984)?

  2. A national bank has been declared to be a national corporation in Guthrie v Harkness, 199 US 148, 159 (1905). 12 CFR 7.4006 treats a State-chartered nonbank operating subsidiary of a national bank as equivalent to a national bank and, thus, as a national corporation. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is violated to the extent a statute permits the conversion of State corporations into federal ones in contravention of the laws of the place of their creation. Hopkins v Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v Cleary, 296 US 315, 335 (1935). Does 12 CFR 7.4006, by equating a State-chartered nonbank operating subsidiary with a national bank for purposes of federal preemption of State regulation, violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

Parties
    Merits Phase

    Coming Soon
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Linda A. Watters:

Thomas L. Casey
Solicitor General
Office of the Attorney General
Lansing, MI
For Respondents Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al.:
Lori McAllister
Dykema Gossett PLLC
Lansing, MI


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

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

Copied to clipboard