Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan| Feb | Mar| Apr| Unscheduled
October 2001
Monday, October 1
Correctional Services Corp. v. John E. Malesko
No. 00-860
Subject:
Question:
Whether a private corporation operating a Community Corrections Center
that houses and provides services to federal prisoners under a contract
with the Bureau of Prisons is subject to suit under the implied damages
action this Court recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971).
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties:
- Petitioner [PDF]
- Respondent [TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Amicus - Respondent:
- American Civil Liberties Union [PDF]
Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, et al. v. Janette Knudson, et vir
No. 99-1786
Subject:
ERISA, Health Care Plans, Subrogation, Reimbursement
Question:
Whether a civil action brought under Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), to redress a violation of, or to enforce, a term of a plan that requires a plan
participant or beneficiary to reimburse the plan for medical expenses paid by the plan if the participant or
beneficiary receives a recovery from a third-party tortfeasor, constitutes an action for "appropriate
equitable relief" authorized by Section 502(a)(3).
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Amicus - Petitioner:
- American Association of Health Plans et al. [PDF]
- National Association of Subrogation Professionals, Inc. [MS-WORD]
- United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Tuesday, October 2
Chickasaw Nation v. United States
No. 00-507
Subject:
American Indians, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Excise Taxes
Question:
Whether Section 20(d) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C.
2719(d), exempts Native American Tribes from the wagering excise and occupational
taxes imposed by Sections 4401 and 4411 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. Gulf Power Company, et al.
No. 00-832
Federal Communications Commission and United States v. Gulf Power Company, et al.
No. 00-843
Subject:
Question:
- Whether those provisions of the Pole Attachments Act apply to attachments by cable television systems that are simultaneously used to provide high-speed Internet access and conventional cable television programming.
- Whether those provisions of the Pole Attachments Act apply to attachments by providers of wireless telecommunications services no less than to attachments by providers of wireline telecommunications services.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: April 11, 2000
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: April 21, 2000, Manuscript Opinion.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Dated: September 12, 2000, Rehearing En Banc Denied.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Dated: September 27, 2000, Rehearing En Banc Denied.
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 16, 2002
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties:
- Petitioner FCC and United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner FCC and United States - Appendix (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner FCC and United States - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner FCC and United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner National Cable Television Association Inc. [PDF] [MS-WORD]
- Respondent WorldCom Inc. [PDF] [MS-WORD]
- Respondent Florida Power & Light Co. [PDF] [MS-WORD]
- Petitioner FCC and United States - Reply [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Wednesday, October 3
New York, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.
Enron Power Marketing, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.
Nos. 00-568, 00-809
Subject:
Public Utilities, Equal Access, Electric Transmission Lines
Question:
- Whether the Commission's open access regulations are permissible under
Sections 205 and 206 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e.
- Whether the Commission properly concluded that Section 201 of the
FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824, authorizes the Commission to assert jurisdiction over
interstate transmission service involved in a retail sale transaction where
States have unbundled such transactions into separate transmission and sales
services, but does not require the Commission to assert jurisdiction over
transmission service that remains bundled with local retail sales and distribution
service.
- Whether Section 201 of the FPA authorizes the Commission to assert
jurisdiction over facilities that may be used both for local distribution
to retail customers and for transmission of electric energy to wholesale
purchasers.
- Whether Section 201 of the FPA bars the Commission from allowing utilities
to recover certain stranded costs caused by the unbundling of retail electric
service.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit, Decided: June 30, 2000
- U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit, Amended: November 14, 2000
- U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit, Order: November 14, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: February 26, 2001
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 4, 2002
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties:
- Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Respondent Edison Electric Institute [PDF]
- Respondent Electricity Consumers Resource Council et al. [PDF]
- Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Respondent Transmission Access Policy Group [PDF]
Amicus - Respondents:
- Electrical Engineers et al. [PDF]
J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl.
No. 99-1996
Subject:
Intellectual Property, Patents, Agriculture, Seeds
Question:
Whether sexually reproduced plants are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Amicus - Respondent:
- American Intellectual Proeprty Law Association [PDFPDF]
- United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Amicus - Neither Party:
- Malla Pollack et al. - Reversal [PDF]
Tuesday, October 9
Postal Service v. Maria A. Gregory
No. 00-758
Subject:
Civil Service Reform Act, Employment, Discipline
Question:
Whether a federal agency, when disciplining or removing an employee for misconduct pursuant to the Civil Service Reform
Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., may take account of prior disciplinary actions that are the subject of pending grievance
proceedings.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
TRW Inc. v. Adelaide Andrews
No. 00-1045
Subject:
Question:
Whether the limitation period under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. 1681 et seq., which allows private damage actions "to enforce
any liability created under [the Act]" to be brought "within two
years from the date on which the liability arises," begins to run at
the time of an alleged violation, even if the potential plaintiff has no
reason to know that she has been injured.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Amicus - Respondent:
- National Association of Consumer Advocates et al. [TEXT]
- United States et al. [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Wednesday, October 10
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc.
No. 99-1823
Subject:
EEOC, Arbitration, Labor and Employment
Question:
Whether an employee's agreement to arbitrate employment-related disputes
with an employer bars the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as plaintiff
in an enforcement action against the employer, from obtaining victim-specific
remedies for discrimination against the employee, such as backpay, reinstatement,
and damages.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
- Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner - Joint Appendix [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- National Employment Lawyers Association et al. [PDF]
- National Whistleblower Center [TEXT]
Amicus - Respondent:
- Equal Employment Advisory Council [PDF]
Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.
No. 00-511
WorldCom, Inc., et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al.
No. 00-555
Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Iowa Utilities Board, et al.
No. 00-587
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, et al.
00-590
General Communications, Inc. v. Iowa Utilities Board, et al.
No. 00-602
Subject:
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Federal Communications Commission, Interconnection Rates
Question:
- Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that 47 U.S.C. Sec. 252(d)(1) (Telecommunications Act of 1996) forecloses the cost methodology adopted by the FCC, which is based on the efficient replacement cost of existing technology, for determining the interconnection rates that new entrants into local telecommunications markets must pay incumbent local telephone companies.
- Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that neither the Takings Clause nor the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires incorporation of an incumbent local exchange carrier's "historical" costs into the rates that it may charge new entrants for access to its network elements.
- Whether 47 U.S.C. Sec. 251(c)(3) prohibits regulators from requiring that incumbent local telephone companies combine certain previously uncombined network elements when a new entrant requests the combination and agrees to compensate the incumbent for performing that task.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 8th Circuit, Filed: July 18, 1997
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 25, 1999. AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366 (1999)
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 8th Circuit, Filed: July 18, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 22, 2001
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 13, 2002
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties:
- Petitioner United States and FCC (Petition) (00-587) [PDF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner United States and FCC - Reply (Petition) (00-587) [PDF] [TEXT]
- Respondent United States Telecom Association et al. (Petition) (00-555, 00-587, 00-590, 00-602) [PDF]
- Respondent FCC and United States (Petition) (00-511) [PDF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner United States and FCC [PDF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner United States and FCC - Reply [PDF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner WorldCom Inc. et al. [PDF]
- Petitioner WorldCom Inc. et al. - Reply [PDF]
Monday, October 29
Larry D. Dusenbery v. United States
No. 00-6567
Subject:
Administrative Forfeiture, Notice, Prisoners
Question:
Whether the United States satisfied the notice requirements of the Due Process
Clause by sending a federal prisoner notice of an administrative forfeiture
proceeding by certified mail addressed to the prisoner at the prison where
he was incarcerated.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Remon Lee v. Mike Kemna, Superintendent, Crossroads Correctional Center
No. 00-6933
Subject:
Question:
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Amicus - Respondent:
- Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [TEXT]
Tuesday, October 30
John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. The Free Speech Coalition, et al.
No. 00-795
Subject:
Child Pornography Prevention Act, First Amendment, Free Speech
Question:
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, prohibits, inter alia, the shipment, distribution, receipt, reproduction, sale, or possession of
any visual depiction that "appears to be[] of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8)(B) (Supp. IV 1998). It
also contains a similar prohibition concerning any visual depiction that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such
a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." 18
U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8)(D) (Supp. IV 1998). The question presented is whether those prohibitions violate the First Amendment to the
Constitution.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties:
- Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
- Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (Petition) [PDF]
- Senator Sam Brownback et al. [TEXT]
- National Law Center for Children and Families et al. [PDF]
Amicus - Respondent:
- American Civil Liberties Union et al. [PDF]
Kansas v. Michael T. Crane
No. 00-957
Subject:
Sexual Predators, Due Process, Civil Confinement
Question:
Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process
Clause requires a State to prove that a sexually violent
predator "cannot control" his criminal sexual behavior before
the State can civilly commit him for residential care and
treatment?
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs:
Amicus - Petitioner:
- Association for the Treatment of Substance Abusers [PDF]
Amicus - Respondent:
- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. [PDF]
Wednesday, October 31
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
No. 00-730
Subject:
Equal Protection Clause, Fifth Amendment, Subcontractor Compensation Clauses, Affirmative Action
Question:
- Whether the court of appeals misapplied the strict scrutiny standard in determining if Congress had a compelling interest to enact legislation designed to remedy the effects of racial discrimination.
- Whether the United States Department of Transportation's current Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
Decisions:
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 12, 1995
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 10th Circuit, Filed: March 4, 1999
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 10th Circuit, Filed: September 25, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: March 26, 2001
- United States Supreme Court, Dismissed: November 27, 2001
Resources:
Briefs:
Parties:
- Petitioner (Petition) [TEXT]
- Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner (Petition) - Reply [TEXT]
- Petitioner [TEXT]
- Respondent [PDF] [TEXT]
- Respondent (Appendix) [PDF] [TEXT]
- Petitioner - Reply [TEXT]
Amicus - Petitioner:
- Atlantic Legal Foundation [TEXT]
- The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence [PDF] [RTF]
- Pacific Legal Foundation et al. [PDF]
Amicus - Respondent:
- Minority Businesss Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. et al. [PDF]
- National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium et al. [PDF]
Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc.
No. 00-927
Subject:
Employment, Worker Safety, OSHA, Coast Guard
Question:
Whether the United States Coast Guard has “exercise[d] statutory authority
to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational
safety or health” concerning the “working conditions of employees”
(29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)) on "uninspected vessel[s]" (46 U.S.C. 2101(43))
so as to displace application of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.
Decisions:
Resources:
Briefs: