Calendar of Oral Arguments
Monday, November 3, 2003
- 02-809 MARYLAND v. PRINGLE, JOSEPH J.
Questions presented: Where drugs and a roll of cash are found in the passenger compartment of a car with multiple occupants, and all deny ownership, does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a police officer form arresting the occupants of the car?Docket information ·
- 02-819 KONTRICK, ANDREW J. v. RYAN, ROBERT A.
Questions presented:Docket information ·
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
- 02-1196 SEC v. EDWARDS, CHARLES E.
Questions presented: Whether the Court of appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that an investment scheme is excluded from the term investment contract in the definitions of ''securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10), if the promoter promises a fixed rather than variable return or if the investor is contractually entitled to a particular amount or rate of return.Docket information ·
- 02-811 GROH, JEFF v. RAMIREZ, JOSEPH R., ET AL.
Questions presented: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law?Docket information ·
Wednesday, November 5, 2003
- 02-1019 ARIZONA v. GANT, RODNEY J.
Questions presented: When police arrest the recent occupant of a vehicle outside the vehicle, are they precluded from searching the vehicle pursuant to New York v. Belton unless the arrestee was actually or constructively aware of the police before getting out of the vehicle?Docket information ·
- 02-1060 ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER, ROBERT S.
Questions presented: Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).Docket information ·
Monday, November 10, 2003
- 02-693 LAMIE, JOHN M. v. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
Questions presented: Does 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(l) authorize a court to award fees to a debtor's attorney?Docket information ·
- 02-9410 CRAWFORD, MICHAEL D. v. WASHINGTON
Questions presented:Docket information ·
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
- 02-1080 GEN. DYNAMICS LAND SYS. v. CLINE, DENNIS, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits reverse discrimination, I.e., employer action practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.Docket information ·
- 02-1348 OLYMPIC AIRWAYS v. HUSAIN, RUBINA, ETC., ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether the accident condition precedent to air carrier liability for a passenger's death under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention is satisfied when a passenger's pre-existing medical condition is aggravated by exposure to a normal condition in the aircraft cabin, even if the carrier's negligence were a link in the chain, of causation? The Ninth Circuit's answer to this question in the affirmative directly conflicts with the Third and Eleventh Circuit decisions in Abramson v. Japan Airlines, Co., Ltd., 739 F.2d 130 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 470 U.S. 1059 (1985) and Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1111 (1998), and is contrary to the Court's decision in Air France. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985).Docket information ·
Monday, December 1, 2003
- 02-1290 USPS v. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES, ET AL.
Questions presented: The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.Docket information ·
- 02-9065 MUHAMMAD, SHAKUR v. CLOSE, MARK
Questions presented:Docket information ·
Tuesday, December 2, 2003
- 02-1016 TILL, LEE M., ET UX. v. SCS CREDIT CORP.
Questions presented:Docket information ·
- 02-1016 Lee M. TILL, et ux., Petitioners v. SCS CREDIT CORPORATION
Questions presented:Docket information ·
- 02-1315 LOCKE, GOV. OF WA, ET AL. v. DAVEY, JOSHUA
Questions presented: The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?Docket information ·
Wednesday, December 3, 2003
- 02-1377 DOE, BUCK, ET AL. v. CHAO, SEC. OF LABOR
Questions presented:Docket information ·
- 02-954 OFFICE OF INDEP. COUNSEL v. FAVISH, ALLAN J.
Questions presented: The Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C)Docket information ·
Monday, December 8, 2003
- 02-8286 BANKS, DELMA, JR. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ
Questions presented: In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?Docket information ·
- 02-964 BALDWIN, GEORGE H. v. REESE, MICHAEL
Questions presented: By statute and this Court's caselaw, a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. This Court had held that exhaustion requires a state prisoner to fairly present his claim to the state's highest court and that fair presentment requires the prisoner to have alerted the state court that the claim is a federal one. Does a state prisoner alert the State's highest court that he is raising a federal claim when -- in that court--he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis?Docket information ·
Tuesday, December 9, 2003
- 02-1183 UNITED STATES v. PATANE, SAMUEL F.
Questions presented: Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?Docket information ·
- 02-1371 MISSOURI v. SEIBERT, PATRICE
Questions presented: Is the rule that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled form waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings, Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985), abrogated when the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings was intentional?Docket information ·
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
- 02-1580 VIETH, RICHARD, ET AL. v. JUBELIRER, ROBERT C., ET AL.
Questions presented:Docket information ·
- 02-6320 FELLERS, JOHN J. v. UNITED STATES
Questions presented: I. Did the Court of Appeals err when they concluded that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massih v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not interrogated by Government agents; when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents deliberately elicited information from Petitioner? 2. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have been suppressed as fruits of the illegal posts indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court;s decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?Docket information ·
Monday, January 12, 2004
- 02-1238 NIXON, ATT'Y GEN. OF MO v. MO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?Docket information ·
- 02-1386 FCC, ET AL. v. MO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?Docket information ·
- 02-1389 UNITED STATES v. GALLETTI
Questions presented: Whether, in order to enforce the derivative liability of partners for the tax debts of their partnership, the United States must make a separate assessment of the taxes owed by the partnership against each of the partners directly?Docket information ·
- 02-1405 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE v. MO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?Docket information ·
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
- 02-1667 TENNESSEE v. LANE, GEORGE, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?Docket information ·
- 02-458 RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., ETC. v. HENTON, WILLIAM T.
Questions presented: Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?Docket information ·
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
- 02-1343 ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOC. v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
Questions presented: Whether local government regulations prohibiting the purchase of new motor vehicles with specified emission characteristics--which are otherwise approved for sale by state and federal regulators--are preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.Docket information ·
- 02-626 SOUTH FL WATER MGMT. v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether the South Florida Water Management District's longstanding practice of pumping accumulated water from a water collection canal to a water conservation area within the Florida Everglades constitutes an addition of a pollutant from a point source for purposes of Section 402 the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, where the water contains a pollutant but the pumping station source itself adds no pollutants to the water being pumped?Docket information ·
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
- 02-1593 BEDROC LTD., LLC, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether sand and gravel are “valuable minerals” reserved to the United States in land grants issued under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919?Docket information ·
- 02-1809 HIBBS, DIR., AZ DEPT. OF REVENUE v. WINN, KATHLEEN M., ET AL.
Questions presented:Docket information ·
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
- 02-1541 IOWA v. TOVAR, FELIPE E.
Questions presented:Docket information ·
- 03-107 UNITED STATES v. LARA, BILLY JO
Questions presented: Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.Docket information ·
Monday, February 23, 2004
- 02-1657 SCARBOROUGH, RANDALL C. v. PRINCIPI, SEC VETERANS AFFAIRS
Questions presented: Whether a complete application for attorney fees and other expenses under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B), containing all the essential elements, must be filed within thirty days to confer jurisdiction on the court.Docket information ·
- 02-857 HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES v. PFENNIG, SHARON R.
Questions presented: Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account [15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)] rather than as a "finance charge" [15 U.S.C. 1605(a)], within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq?Docket information ·
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
- 02-1205 JONES, EDITH, ET AL., ETC. v. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO.
Questions presented: Does the four-year catch-all limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?Docket information ·
- 02-1603 BEARD, SEC., PA DOC, ET AL. v. BANKS, GEORGE E.
Questions presented:Docket information ·
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
- 02-1794 UNITED STATES v. FLORES-MONTANO, MANUEL
Questions presented: Whether, under the 4th Amendment, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's gas tank for contraband?Docket information ·
- 03-13 AUSTRIA, ET AL. v. ALTMANN, MARIA V.
Questions presented: Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confer jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the Republic of Austria and the state-owned Austrian Gallery in a suit alleging wrongful appropriation of six Gustav Klimt paintings from their rightful heirs?Docket information ·
Monday, March 1, 2004
- 02-1606 TN STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORP. v. HOOD, PAMELA L.
Questions presented:Docket information ·
- 02-1684 YARBOROUGH, WARDEN v. ALVARADO, MICHAEL
Questions presented: (1) Whether, in applying the objective test for a "custody" determination under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a court must consider the age and experience of a person if he or she is a juvenile? (2) Whether a state court adjudication can be deemed an "objectively unreasonable" application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), because it declines to "extend" the rule of a Supreme Court precedent to a new context.Docket information ·
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
- 02-1824 DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ v. HALEY, MICHAEL W.
Questions presented: Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?Docket information ·
- 03-218 ASHCROFT, ATT'Y GEN. v. ACLU, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?Docket information ·
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
- 02-1689 GRUPO DATAFLUX v. ATLAS GLOBAL GROUP, ET AL.
Questions presented: (1) Did the court of appeals err by creating a new exception to the longstanding rule that diversity jurisdiction must be determined based on a party's citizenship and circumstances as they existed at the time suit was filed? (2) Did the court of appeals err by allowing a unilateral change in a party's citizenship during the course of litigation to create diversity jurisdiction that did not exist at the time suit was filed?Docket information ·
- 03-44 SABRI, BASIM O. v. UNITED STATES
Questions presented: Whether Sabri is entitled to dismissal of the indictment charging him with three counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2), on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to make bribery of a local official a federal crime without federal funds being at risk?Docket information ·
Monday, March 22, 2004
- 02-10038 TENNARD, ROBERT J. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ
Questions presented:Docket information ·
- 03-5554 HIIBEL, LARRY D. v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
Questions presented: Whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to require someone to identify himself when stopped by police?Docket information ·
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
- 02-1632 BLAKELY, RALPH H. v. WASHINGTON
Questions presented: Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).Docket information ·
- 02-1845 AETNA HEALTH INC., ETC. v. DAVILA, JUAN
Questions presented: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?Docket information ·
- 03-83 CIGNA HEALThCARE OF TEXAS, INC. v. CALAD, RUBY R., ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?Docket information ·
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
- 02-1609 LITTLETON, CO v. Z.J. GIFTS D-4, LLC, ETC.
Questions presented: Whether the requirement of prompt judicial review imposed by FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), entails a prompt judicial determination or a prompt commencement of judicial proceedings?Docket information ·
- 02-1624 ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCH. DIST. v. NEWDOW, MICHAEL A., ET AL.
Questions presented: (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment?Docket information ·
Monday, March 29, 2004
- 03-101 NORTON, SEC. OF INTERIOR, ET AL. v. S. UT WILDERNESS ALLIANCE
Questions presented: Whether the authority of the federal courts under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(1), to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" extends to the review of the adequacy of an agency's ongoing management of public lands under general statutory standards and its own land use plans?Docket information ·
- 03-6821 NELSON, DAVID L. v. CAMPBELL, COMM’R, AL DOC, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?Docket information ·
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
- 03-339 SOSA, JOSE F. v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, H., ET AL.
Questions presented: (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?Docket information ·
- 03-485 UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, HUMBERTO
Questions presented: (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?Docket information ·
- 03-6539 JOHNSON, JAY S. v. CALIFORNIA
Questions presented: Whether to establish a prima facie case under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the objector must show that it is more likely than not that the other party's peremptory challenges, if unexplained, were based on impermissible group bias?Docket information ·
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
- 03-5165 THORNTON, MARCUS v. UNITED STATES
Questions presented: Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?Docket information ·
- 03-95 PA STATE POLICE v. SUDERS, NANCY D.
Questions presented: When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?Docket information ·
Monday, April 19, 2004
- 02-891 CENTRAL LABORERS' PENSION v. HEINZ, THOMAS E., ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether an amendment to a multiemployer pension plan that provides for the suspension of the payment of early retirement benefits during the period that a participant, after retiring, is employed by another firm in the same industry is a prohibited elimination or reduction of such benefits under the "anti-cutback" rule in Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), when applied to employees who retired prior to adoption of the amendment.Docket information ·
- 03-526 SCHRIRO, DIR., AZ DOC v. SUMMERLIN, WARREN W.
Questions presented: 1) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring v. Arizona is substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exempt from the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)? (2) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague's exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that alter bedrock procedural principles and seriously enhance the accuracy of the proceedings?Docket information ·
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
- 02-572 INTEL CORP. v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
Questions presented:Docket information ·
- 03-334 RASUL, SHAFIQ, ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?Docket information ·
- 03-343 AL ODAH, FAWZI K., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?Docket information ·
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
- 03-167 UNITED STATES v. BENITEZ, CARLOS D.
Questions presented: Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?Docket information ·
- 03-358 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. v. PUBLIC CITIZEN, ET AL.
Questions presented: Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?Docket information ·
Monday, April 26, 2004
- 03-221 PLILER, WARDEN v. FORD, RICHARD H.
Questions presented: (1) Whether the dismissal of a "mixed" habeas corpus petition is improper unless the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of the proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitioner with respect to the statute of limitations in the event of any refiling? (2) Whether a second, untimely habeas petition may relate back to a first habeas petition, where the first habeas petition was dismissed and the first proceeding is no longer proceeding?Docket information ·
- 03-724 F. HOFFMANN-LaROCHE, ET AL. v. EMPAGRAN S.A., ET AL.
Questions presented: (1) Whether under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, the Sherman Act applies to claims of foreign plaintiffs whose injuries do not arise from the effects of antitrust violations on United States commerce? (2) Whether such foreign plaintiffs lack antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)?Docket information ·
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
- 03-475 CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF U.S. v. USDC DC
Questions presented: (1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?Docket information ·
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
- 03-1027 RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE v. PADILLA, JOSE, ET AL.
Questions presented: (1) Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and war-like acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority? (2) Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition?Docket information ·
- 03-6696 HAMDI, YASER E. ET AL. v. RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE
Questions presented: Did the court of appeals erred in holding that the U.S. has established the legality of the military's detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a presumed American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan during the combat operations in late 2001, and was determined by the military to be an enemy combatant who should be detained in connection with the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan?Docket information ·