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:
- 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
- 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:
- 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.
- 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).
- 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:
- Is the holding in Blakely a new rule or is it dictated by Apprendi?
- 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
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
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
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
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:
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 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:
- 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)?
- 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
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