Supreme Court Docket


Index | October | November | December | January | February | March | April

February 2001

Tuesday, February 20

KYLLO v. UNITED STATES
No. 99-8508

Subject:
Fourth Amendment, Warrantless Search, Thermal Imaging Scan

Question:

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

LACKAWANNA COUNTY D.A. v. COSS
No. 99-1884

Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Sentence Enhancement, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Question:
Does the custody requirement of the federal habeas corpus statute preclude, under all circumstances, a challenge upon a fully expired conviction that was used to enhance a current conviction under habeas attack and for which the prisoner is presently in custody?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

UNITED STATES v. HATTER
No. 99-1978

Subject:
Taxes, Judicial Compensation, Compensation Clause, Medicare, Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Tax (OASDI)

Question:
1. Whether Congress violated the Compensation Clause, U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1, when it extended the taxes financing the HI and OASDI programs to the judicial salaries of respondents, who were sitting Article III judges at the time those taxes were first applied to judicial salaries.

2. Whether any constitutional violation ended when Congress increased the statutory salaries of federal judges in an amount greater than the amount of HI and OASDI taxes deducted from respondents' judicial salaries.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Wednesday, February 21

Kestutis Zadvydas v. Christine G. Davis and Immigration and Naturalization Service
(Formerly ZADVYDAS v. UNDERDOWN)
No. 99-7791

Subject:
Immigration, Due Process, Deportation, Stateless Person, Indefinite Detention

Question:

  1. Does the Due Process Clause prohibit the prolonged indefinite detention of petitioner after entry of a final deportation order when deportation is not reasonably foreseeable.

  2. To avoid a substantial constitutional question, should this Court construe 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) to authorize only a reasonable period of detention after a deportation order because the statute is silent as to length of confinement.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

RENO v. MA
No. 00-38

Subject:
Immigration, Habeas Corpus, Deportation, Indefinite Detention

Question:
Whether the Attorney General is authorized to continue to detain an alien beyond the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) (Supp. IV 1998) if the alien cannot be removed immediately from the country but the Attorney General has determined that the alien would pose a risk of flight or danger to the community if released, and the alien's custody is subject to periodic administrative review.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

NLRB v. KENTUCKY RIVER COMMUNITY CARE, INC.
No. 99-1815

Subject:
National Labor Relations Act, Unions, Employers, Supervisors, Nurses

Question:

  1. Whether the National Labor Relations Board reasonably concluded that an employee's exercise of ordinary professional or technical judgment in directing less-skilled employees to deliver services in accordance with employer-specified standards does not constitute the exercise of "independent judgment" that makes the employee a "supervisor" under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 152(11).

  2. Whether the Board permissibly requires the party who alleges that an employee is excluded from the rights and protections afforded by the Act as a supervisor to bear the burden of proving the individual's supervisory status.

  3. Whether, applying its interpretation of "independent judgment" and its allocation of the burden of proving supervisory status, the Board reasonably concluded that respondent's registered nurses are "employees," rather than supervisors, and thus entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the Act.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Monday, February 26

COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC.
No. 99-2035

Subject:
Punitive Damages, Standard of Review

Question:

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

LUJAN v. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC.
No. 00-152

Subject:
Due Process, Notices, Hearings, Wage Requirements

Question:

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

PALAZZOLO v. RHODE ISLAND
No. 99-2047

Subject:
Fifth Amendment, Takings

Question:

  1. Whether a regulatory takings claim is categorically barred whenever the enactment of the regulation predates the claimant's acquisition of the property.

  2. Where a land-use agency has authoritatively denied a particular use of the property and the owner alleges that such denial per se constitutes a regulatory taking, whether the owner must file additional applications seeking permission for "less ambitious uses" in order to ripen the takings claim.

  3. Whether the remaining permissible uses of regulated property are economically viable merely because the property retains a value greater than zero.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Tuesday, February 27

BUCKHANNON BOARD & CARE HOME v. WV DEPT. HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCES
No. 99-1848

Subject:
Attorney Fees, Fair Housing Amendments Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Catalyst Theory

Question:
Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in its interpretation of Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), in S-1 and S-2, in concluding that the catalyst theory is no longer available for civil rights plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

UNITED STATES v. CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL
No. 00-203

Subject:
Taxes, Back Wages, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)

Question:
Whether, for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, 26 U.S.C. 3101-3128, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. 3301-3311, an award of back wages should be attributed to the year the award was actually paid or, instead, to the year that the events occurred that gave rise to the award.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Wednesday, February 28

GOOD NEWS CLUB v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
No. 99-2036

Subject:
First Amendment, Free Speech, School Access, Religious Instruction

Question:

  1. Whether a public school that permits speakers to use its facilities after school hours to instruct "in any branch of education, learning or the arts," to "benefit the welfare of the community," and to "promote the morals of children," but forbids speakers whose speech it deems to be too religious from using its facilities, engages in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the United States Constitution?

  2. Whether a governmental official's determination whether speech is "a discussion of morals from a religious viewpoint" (which is deemed to be permissible speech) or is "religious instruction" (which is deemed to be impermissible speech) unconstitutionally entangles the state with religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

FEC v. COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN
No. 00-191

Subject:
Elections, First Amendment, Federal Election Campaign Act, Political Party Spending Limits

Question:
Whether a political party has a First Amendment right to make unlimited campaign expenditures in coordination with the party's congressional candidates, notwithstanding the limits on such coordinated expenditures imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs: