Supreme Court Docket



Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled

December 2002

[Download December 2002 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2001 Docket]

Monday, December 2

United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe
No. 01-1067

Subject:

Question: Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

United States v. Navajo Nation
No. 01-1375

Subject:

Question: Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Tuesday, December 3

David Meyer, et al. v. Emma Mary Holley, et al.
No. 01-1120

Subject:

Question: Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., et al. v. Guardianship of Keffeler, et al.
No. 01-1420

Subject:

Question: Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Wednesday, December 4

Joseph Scheidler, Andrew Scholberg, Timothy Murphy, and The Pro-Life Action League, Inc. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.
No. 01-1118

Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.
No. 01-1119

Subject:

Question:
  1. Whether the Seventh Circuit correctly held, in acknowledged conflict with the Ninth Circuit, that injunctive relief is available in a private civil action for treble damages brought under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

  2. Whether the Hobbs Act, which makes it a crime to obstruct, delay, or affect interstate commerce “by robbery or extortion” and which defines “extortion” as “the obtaining of property from another, with [the owner’s] consent,” where such consent is “induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear” (18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) (emphasis added)) criminalizes the activities of political protesters who engage in sit-ins and demonstrations that obstruct the public’s access to a business’s premises and interfere with the freedom of putative customers to obtain services offered there.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Ben Chavez v. Oliverio Martinez
No. 01-1444

Subject:

Question:
  1. Was the Ninth Circuit correct in characterizing the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and ignoring its holding favorable to a civil rights defendant?

  2. Does a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occur at the time of the purported coercive interview or only when and if the state introduces the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding?

  3. Was the Ninth Circuit correct in holding that the conduct of the investigating officer in this case was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Monday, December 9

Boeing Co., et al. v. United States
No. 01-1209

United States v. Boeing Sales Corp., et al.
No. 01-1382

Subject:

Question: Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Allen D. Brown, et al. v. Legal Foundation of Washington, et al.
No. 01-1325

Subject:

Question: Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Tuesday, December 10

Branch, et al. v. Smith, et al.
No. 01-1437

Smith, et al. v. Branch, et al.
No. 01-1596

Subject:

Question:
  1. Does Article I, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution deprive state courts of general jurisdiction of all power in congressional redistricting cases in the many states where no state statute explicitly speaks of such power?

  2. If a state court, in the course of adhering to developments in the law, assumes jurisdiction and hears a type of voting rights case it has never heard before, does it thereby "enact or seek to administer [a] voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different form [sic] that in force and effect on November 1, 1964," as stated in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 4 U.S.C. § 1973c), such that the mere assumption of jurisdiction (independent of any remedial order) must be precleared by the U.S. Attorney General or the federal district court for the District of Columbia under Section 5?

  3. Under Section 5, when a redistricting plan adopted by state authorities has "been submitted" to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, may a federal district court nevertheless prevent enforcement and extend the statutory 60-day review period on the basis of the Attorney General's request for additional information if the information sought is unnecessary and irrelevant to the Section 5 retrogression evaluation?

  4. Whether, as its plain language declares, U.S.C. 2a(5) [sic] requires a state whose representation in Congress has been reduced after a census to elect its Representatives "from the State at large"..."[u]ntil a state is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof."
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Borden Ranch Partnership, et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
No. 01-1243

Subject:

Question: Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Wednesday, December 11

Virginia v. Barry E. Black, et al.
No. 01-1107

Subject:

Question: Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

State Farm Mutual Auto. v. Curtis Campbell, et ux.
No. 01-1289

Subject:

Question:
  1. Whether the United States Constitution allows a state court to impose and inflate punitive damages based on the defendant's purely out-of-state conduct or its aggregate worldwide "wealth" and profits.

  2. Whether the United States Constitution requires that juries be instructed on the federal constitutional limitations on their ability to assess punitive damages.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

 

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled

 

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