During the October 2007 Term, the Tarlton Law Library monitored cases pending before the Supreme Court. Below is an archive of the opinions issued and the certiorari petitions granted during this Term. This archive does not include summary dispositions of certiorari petitions or orders issued on pending cases.
District of Columbia v. Heller
Justice Scalia delivered the 5-4 opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. The Court affirmed the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court that the city’s handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement violated the Second Amendment.Davis v. Federal Election Commission
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas; Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined as to parts of the opinion. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part; Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined as to part of this opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Breyer. The Court held that the federal election law provisions at issue (including the “Millionaire’s Amendment) which, under certain circumstances, imposed different campaign contribution limits on candidates competing for the same congressional seat were unconstitutional. The case was reversed and remanded.Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in this case involving the scope of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito; Justice Ginsburg joined as to one part of the opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration of the case. Under the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) must presume that the electricity rate set in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract meets the “just and reasonable” requirement of the Federal Power Act (41 Stat. 1063), and the presumption may be overcome only if FERC concludes that the contract seriously harms the public interest. The Court held that (1) FERC was required to apply the Mobile-Sierra presumption in evaluating the relevant contracts; and (2) the Ninth Circuit’s “zone of reasonableness” test failed to accord an adequate level of protection to contracts. The standard for a buyer’s rate-increase challenge must be the same as the standard for a seller’s challenge. The judgment below was nonetheless affirmed on alternative grounds and the case was remanded.Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Island Family & Cattle
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito; Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined as to one part of the opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer. The Court held that the tribal court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a discrimination claim concerning a non-Indian bank’s sale of fee land it owned on a tribal reservation.Giles v. California
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court except as to one part, and Justices Thomas and Alito joined that opinion in full; Justices Souter and Ginsburg joined as to all but that same part. Justices Thomas and Alito filed concurring opinions. Justice Souter filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg. The Court held that the California Supreme Court’s theory of forfeiture by wrongdoing is not an exception to the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation requirement because it was not an exception established at the founding. The defendant did not forfeit his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness against him when the judge determined that a wrongful act by the defendant made the witness unavailable to testify at trial.Kennedy v. Louisiana (opinion modified October 1, 2008)
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death.Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court in this case involving the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas; Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined parts of the opinion. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Alito took no part in consideration of the case. The Court held that (1) federal statutory law did not bar a punitive award on top of damages for economic loss, and (2) the award in this case should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages. The Court was equally divided on the question of a shipowner’s derivative liability for punitive damages.Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services, Inc.
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg. The Court held that an assignee of a legal claim for money owed has standing to pursue that claim in federal court, even when the assignee has promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor.Greenlaw v. United States
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas; Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion and also joined as to parts of the dissent written by Justice Alito. The Court held that a United States Court of Appeals, acting on its own initiative, may not order an increase in a defendant’s sentence.Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Texas
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito; Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Scalia; Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia. The Court previously held that the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment applies at the first appearance before a judicial officer at which a defendant is told of the formal accusation against him and restrictions are imposed on his liberty. In this case, the Court held that attachment of the right does not require that a public prosecutor (as distinct from a police officer) be aware of that initial proceeding or involved in its conduct.Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. Brown, Attorney General of California, et al.
Justice Stevens, in a 7-2 decision for the Court, with Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissenting, held that California Assembly Bill 1889, which, among other things, prohibits employers that receive state grants of more than $10,000 per year in state program funds from using those funds to “assist, promote, or deter union organizing” (Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §§16645.2(a) and 16645.7(a)) is pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act, reversing and remanding the Ninth Circuit opinion.Meacham et al. v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, aka Kapl, Inc., et al.
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Alito joined, with Justice Thomas joining in part and Justice Scalia concurring in the judgment, in a case involving a disparate-impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. §621 et seq.) brought by former employees of a National Government contractor who had been laid off after the contractor was ordered to reduce its work force. The court held that employers defending disparate-impact claims under the ADEA must bear both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion for the affirmative defense of “reasonable factors other than age” under §623(f)(1). Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.Indiana v. Edwards
Justice Breyer delivered a 7-2 decision for the Court, with Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting, in a Sixth Amendment right of self-representation challenge brought by an individual who, in competency proceedings, had been found to suffer from schizophrenia, and, while competent to stand trial, was not competent to represent himself. The Court held that the Constitution does not forbid States from insisting upon representation by appointed counsel for those competent to stand trial but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings on their own behalf, vacating and remanding the decision below.Kentucky Retirement Systems et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Justice Breyer delivered the 5-4 opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Souter, and Thomas, in a case involving an age discrimination complaint against Kentucky’s calculation of retirement and disability retirement benefit plans for “hazardous position” workers. The Court held that Kentucky’s system does not discriminate against workers who become disabled after becoming eligible for retirement based on age, reversing the lower court’s decision.Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al. v. Glenn
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion for a split Court, in which Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Alito joined, Chief Justice Roberts concurred in part and in the judgment, and Justice Kennedy concurred in part and dissented in part, in a case involving federal-court Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) §1132(a)(1)(B) review of a denial of benefits determination by Metropolitan Life Insurance for a claim submitted by respondent, a Sears, Roebuck and Company employee. The Court affirmed the lower court and held that : (1) the four principles as to the appropriate standard of judicial review under ERISA §1132(a)(1)(B) are set out by Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Brunch, 499 U.S. 101 (1990), the last of which was related to abuse of fiduciary discretion and conflicts of interest; (2) the dual role of plan administrator’s in evaluating and paying benefits claims creates the type of conflict of interest referred to in Firestone; and (3) the significance of the conflict of interest factor will depend upon the circumstances of a particular case.Dada v. Mukasey, Attorney General
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer in a case involving provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–546. The Court held that an alien must be permitted an opportunity to withdraw a motion for voluntary departure, provided the request is made before expiration of the departure period.Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by 6 Justices. The Court held that 11 U.S.C. §1146(a)’s stamp-tax exemption does not apply to transfers made before a plan is confirmed under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code so Respondent may not rely on that provision to avoid Florida’s stamp taxes.Munaf et al. v. Geren, Secretary of the Army, et al.
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Roberts, the Court held that the habeas statute extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command, even when those forces are acting as part of a multinational coalition. The Court also held that Federal district courts may not exercise their habeas jurisdiction to enjoin the United States from transferring individuals alleged to have committed crimes and detained within the territory of a foreign sovereign to that sovereign for criminal prosecution.Irizarry v. United States
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court joined by Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito; Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. The Court held that Rule 32(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not apply to a variance from a recommended Federal Sentencing Guidelines range.Boumediene at al. v. Bush, President of the United States, et al.
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer; Justice Souter delivered a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. The Court held that Petitioners, enemy combatants held at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus and are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s (Art. I, §9, cl. 2) protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo.Republic of Philippines et al. v. Pimentel, Temporary Administrator of Estate of Pimentel, Deceased, et al.
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by six Justices as well as Justices Souter and Stevens as to parts of the opinion, in a case involving the interpretation and proper application of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rule’s operation in the context of foreign sovereign immunity. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit gave insufficient weight to the foreign sovereign status of the Republic of the Philippines and the Philippine Presidential Commission of Good Governance, and that the court further erred in reaching and discounting the merits of their claims. Rule 19 required dismissal of the interpleader action.Taylor v. Sturgell, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, et al.
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court disapproved the doctrine of preclusion by “virtual representation” and held that Petitioner was not barred from maintaining his suit under the Freedom of Information Act. The preclusive effects of a judgment in a federal-question case decided by a federal court should instead be determined according to the established grounds for nonparty preclusion.Bridge et al. v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. et al.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Thomas, the Court held that a plaintiff asserting a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U. S.C. §§1961–1968, predicated on mail fraud need not show, either as an element of its claim or as a prerequisite to establishing proximate causation, that it relied on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations.Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture et al.
In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that a public employee cannot state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that she was arbitrarily treated differently from other similarly situated employees, with no assertion that the different treatment was based on the employee’s membership in any particular class.Allison Engine Co., Inc., et al. v. United States Ex Rel. Sanders et al.
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court held that it is insufficient for a plaintiff asserting a claim under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(2), to show merely that the false statement’s use resulted in payment or approval of the claim or that Government money was used to pay the false or fraudulent claim. Instead, such a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended that the false statement be material to the Government’s decision to pay or approve the false claim.Quanta Computer, Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the doctrine of patent exhaustion applies to method patents, and because the license in question authorized the sale of components that substantially embodied the patents at hand, the sale exhausted the patents and prevents LG Electronics from further asserting its patent rights with respect to the patents substantially embodied by those products.United States v. Santos et al.
Justice Scalia delivered an opinion in which Justices Souter and Ginsburg joined and Justice Thomas joined except as to one part; Justice Stevens filed a concurring opinion. The Court held that the term “proceeds” in the federal money-laundering statute, 18 U. S. C. §1956(a)(1), means “profits” not “receipts.”Regalado Cuellar v. United States
Justice Thomas delivered the Court’s opinion in a case involving the provision of the federal money laundering statute that prohibits international transportation of the proceeds of unlawful activity; Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justices Roberts and Kennedy. The Court held that although 18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(2)(B)(i) does not require proof that the defendant attempted to create the appearance of legitimate wealth, it cannot be satisfied solely by evidence that the funds were concealed during transport.Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff
In an opinion written by Justice Alito (joined by 6 Justices as well as Scalia and Thomas except with respect to certain portions of the opinion), the Court held that a prevailing party that satisfies the other requirements of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U. S. C. §504(a)(l) (2006 ed.) and 28 U. S. C. §2412(d)(1)(A) (2000 ed.), may recover its paralegal fees from the Government at prevailing market rates.
Riley, Governor of Alabama v. Kennedy et al.
This case involves §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §1973 et seq. In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that for purposes of §5, the invalidated law at issue never gained “force or effect” so the State’s reversion to its prior practice did not rank as a “change” requiring preclearance. Thus, the State did not need to obtain fresh preclearance in order to reinstate the election practice prevailing before enactment of the law struck down by the State’s Supreme Court.
CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries
In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Court held that 42 U. S. C. §1981 encompasses retaliation claims.
Gomez-Perez v. Potter, Postmaster General
In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Alito, the Court held that a federal employee who is a victim of retaliation due to the filing of a complaint of age discrimination may assert a claim under the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as added, 88 Stat. 74, and amended, 29 U. S. C. §633a(a) (2000 ed., Supp. V).
U.S. v. Rodriquez
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Alito relating to provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act, the Court held that the “maximum term of imprisonment . . . prescribed by law” for the state drug convictions at issue was the 10-year maximum set by the applicable state recidivist provision.
U.S. v. Ressam
In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court upheld Ressam’s conviction on an explosives charge. At issue was whether Mr. Ressam should be convicted of carrying explosives during the commission of another serious crime.
U.S. v. Williams
Justice Scalia wrote the 7-2 opinion of the Court which upheld criminal penalties for promoting child pornography under Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) of Title 18, United States Code.
Dept. of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis
In a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Souter, the Court voted to uphold the tax exemption states and localities give to in-state municipal bonds.
Gonzalez v. United States
Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion which held that express consent by counsel suffices to permit a magistrate judge to preside over jury selection in a felony trial, pursuant to the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U. S. C. §636(b)(3).
Virginia v. Moore
In an opinion authored by Justice Scalia (Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion), the Court held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest based on probable cause but prohibited by state law.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
In a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Stevens, the Court held that it is not unconstitutional to require photo identification as an election procedure.
Begay v. U.S.
The Court announced in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Breyer that drunk driving is not a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Burgess v. U.S.
Justice Ginsburg wrote the unanimous opinion that held a drug offense punishable by one year in prison is considered a felony, even if the state statute classifies it as a misdemeanor, for the purposes of Controlled Substances Act.
Baze v. Rees
In this death penalty case, the Chief Justice delivered the 7-2 opinion in which the plurality adopted a "substantial risk of serious harm" test for determining whether an execution method was acceptable.
Meadwestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue
Justice Alito penned the unanimous opinion that overturned the lower court decision. The Supreme Court held that Illinois could not tax part of the company's capital gains garnered when the company sold its interest in Lexis/Nexis. The Court examined how the lower court analyzed the "unitary business" requirement for taxation.
U.S. v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the unanimous opinion the held taxpayers seeking a tax refund in federal court must first exhaust IRC's administrative refund claim procedure.
New Jersey v. Delaware
Justice Ginsburg authored the opinion which held that New Jersey and Delaware have joint authority over construction projects on the Delaware River.
Medellin v. Texas
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the 7-2 opinion for the Court, which found that the President does not have the authority to order courts to disregard state criminal procedure in favor of rulings of the World Court.
Hall Street v. Mattel
The Court found in an opinion by Justice Souter that parties may not contract to broader judicial review of arbitration agreements than the FAA allows.
Snyder v. Louisiana
Justice Alito wrote the 7-2 opinion that held the trial judge in this murder case wrongly rejected a challenge to the denial of a seat to a juror on prejudicial grounds.
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
Justice Thomas authored the 7-2 opinion, which held that Washington may continue to use an open primary system.
Warner-Lambert v. Kent
The court split 4-4 (Chief Justice Roberts recused himself) in this product liability case which allows the 2nd Circuit ruling to stand. The lower court allowed a class claiming injury from a diabetic drug to charge the FDA with fraud for approving the drug.
Boulware v. U.S.
In an opinion authored by Justice Souter, the Court unanimously held that an individual accused of criminal tax evasion may argue that money distributed from a corporation was a return-on-capital.
Federal Express v. Holowecki
In a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that a worker must provide more than bare allegations to start an age discrimination case before the EEOC.
Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn
In an opinion written by Justice Thomas, a unanimous Court found that the 10th Circuit erred in its treatment of workers' testimony in an ADEA case. The Court held that Circuit Court misinterpreted the lower court's treatment of a rule and failed to remand the case to have the lower court clarify its position.
Danforth v. Minnesota
In a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Stevens, the Court stated Supreme Court decisions that extend criminal procedure rules may be applied retroactively to benefit prisoners. The decision was sent back to Minnesota.
LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg and Associates, Inc.
Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion which found that employees may sue employers for losses in 401(k) retirement accounts.
Riegel v. Medtronic
In an 8-1 opinion by Justice Scalia, the Court held that state product liability laws are preempted by federal law for devices that have gone through the FDA’s pre-market approval process.
Preston v. Ferrer
Justice Scalia authored this opinion, in which the Court held 8-1 that the Federal Arbitration Act supersedes California state law and governed the arbitration dispute in the instant case.
Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Assn.
In an opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Court found that federal law preempted state laws requiring shippers of tobacco to guarantee the product was not being delivered to minors.
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court held that federal guards were immune from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Knight v. CIR
In an unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court upheld the 2nd Circuit’s decision that investment advisory fees paid by a trust are treated with the same limitations that apply to an individual’s itemized deductions on federal tax returns.
New York Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres
In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court upheld New York’s state judge election procedure finding that it did not violate the First Amendment.
Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta
In a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court found that investors cannot bring private lawsuits against third-parties in corporate fraud cases.
John R. Sand and Gravel Co. v. U.S
The Court ruled in a 7-2 opinion by Justice Breyer that the court must consider whether a lawsuit was filed in a timely manner, even when the Government has waived the issue.
Gall v. U.S.
Justice Stevens authored the 7-2 opinion which overruled the 8th Circuit’s ruling that the trial judge had not supplied enough justification for departing from the guidelines when the trial judge sentenced Gall to probation for selling Ecstasy while he was in college.
Watson v. U.S.
The court unanimously held that a defendant who traded a gun for drugs did not “use” the gun under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), and is therefore not required to serve a 5-year prison sentence for those who use a firearm in conjunction with drug trafficking.
Kimbrough v. U.S.
The court ruled in a 7-2 opinion by Justice Ginsburg that federal judges can set sentences for crack cocaine offense below the federal guideline’s ranges.
CSX v. Ga. State Bd. Of Equalization
Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion in which the Court held that under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act a railroad can try to show that state methods for valuating railroad property result in an unfair determination of market value of the property.
Logan v. United States
In an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the court held that sentence enhancement guidelines found in the Armed Career Criminal Act do apply to offenders who have retained their civil rights.
Knowles, Warden v. Mirzayance, (Post-remand decision of 9th Circuit, 2007 is unpublished. Attached as Appendix B to the Petition for Cert. filed on April 16, 2008.)
The Court will consider whether the defendant’s lawyer’s recommendation to withdraw an insanity plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel for purposes of federal habeas law.
Full question presentedCoeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation
Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation, 486 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2007)
(consolidated)
The Court will consider whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may issue a permit for discharge of fill material otherwise subject to effluent limitations under Section 301 or 306 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387).
Full question presented
Full question presentedHarbison v. Bell, 503 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2007)
At issue is whether a state law barring state courts from hearing damages actions against corrections officers violates the Supremacy Clause by not permitting adjudication of claims under 42 USC 1983.
This case will examine whether the Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-177, Tit. II, § 222(a), 120 Stat. 231 (2006) (to be codified at 18 U.S.C. 3599 (2006)) (Section 3599)), provides prisoners sentenced under state law the right to federally appointed and funded counsel to pursue clemency under state law, and whether a district court’s denial of such a request may be appealed without a certificate of appealability.
Full question presentedWinter, Secretary of the Navy v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 518 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 2008)
This case will address the question of whether courts below properly enjoined the Navy’s use of sonar during training exercises for failure to conduct an environmental impact statement over a finding of “emergency circumstance” by the Council on Environmental Quality.
Full question presentedArizona v. Johnson, 170 P.3d 667 (Az. 2007)
This case will examine whether, in the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but had no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense.
Full question presentedCone v. Bell, 492 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2007)
This capital case involving a Vietnam War veteran will examine whether a federal habeas claim is “procedurally defaulted” because it has been presented twice to the state courts, and whether a federal habeas court is powerless to recognize that a state court erred in holding that state law precludes reviewing a claim.
Full question presentedMinistry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Dariush Elahi, 495 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2007)
This case presents the question of whether an attachment against foreign sovereign property is permissible when that property is "at issue in claims against the United States before an international tribunal," and that property is not a "blocked asset," pursuant to the terms of the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act and the 2002 Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.
Full question presentedAT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, 498 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2007)
This case presents the question of whether employers violate Title VII by not fully restoring service credit for pregnancy leaves taken before the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k)).
Full question presentedPacific Bell Telephone Company, dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 503 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2007)
This case involves whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) permits a “price squeeze” claim if the defendant has no duty to deal.
Full question presentedHaywood, Keith v. Drown, Curtis, et al., 9 N.Y.3d 481 (N.Y. 2007)
At issue is whether a state law barring state courts from hearing damages actions against corrections officers violates the Supremacy Clause by not permitting adjudication of claims under 42 USC 1983.
Full question presentedPeake, Sec. of VA v. Sanders, Woodrow F., 487 F.3d 881(Fed. Cir. 2007)
At issue is whether courts must presume the failure of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to give notice to benefits’ claimants to be prejudicial.
Full question presentedAshcroft, Former Att'y General v. Iqbal, Javaid, et al., 490 F.3d 143 (2nd Cir. 2007)
At issue is whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, are entitled to qualified immunity against allegations they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
Full question presentedPhilip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams, Mayola, 176 P.3d 1255 (Or. 2008)
This case examines whether the Supreme Court of Oregon, on remand from the Court’s 2007 decision on the constitutionality of a $79.5 million punitive damages award based on harms done to non-named plaintiffs, improperly asserted a state law procedural bar having the effect of precluding Phillip Morris from asserting a constitutional claim.
Full question presentedFitzgerald, Lisa et vir v. Barnstable School Comm., et al., 504 F3d 165 (1st Cir. 2007)
This case examines whether Title IX precludes Section 1983 constitutional claims to remedy sex discrimination in educational settings.
Full question presentedRiley, Governor of Alabama v. Kennedy, et al., 2007 WL 1284912 (M.D. Ala., 2007)
This case presents a novel question concerning §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court will determine whether the State must obtain fresh preclearance in order to reinstate the election practice prevailing before enactment of the law struck down by the State’s Supreme Court.
Full question presentedBell v. Kelly, 2008 WL 59946 (4th Cir. 2006)
This is a capital case involving an assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The Court will consider whether 28 U.S.C 2254, the federal habeas provision governing claims adjudicated on the merits in state court, should be applied to claims based on evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel the state court refused to consider.
Full question presented
NOTE: Dismissed by the Court Monday, November 17, 2008, as improvidently granted.Chambers v. U.S., 473 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2007)
The Court will determine whether a conviction for escape when one fails to report to prison can qualify for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Full question presentedU.S. v. Eurodif and USEC v. Eurodif, 506 F.3d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
In these cases consolidated for hearing, the Court will review the federal government’s power to charge “anti-dumping” fees on imports made from U.S. raw materials and then returned to the U.S. at a low price.
Full question presented
Full question presentedEntergy Corp. v. EPA
PSEG Fossil v. Riverkeeper
Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)
(consolidated for hearing)
The Court has limited the question to: “Whether 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1326(b), authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compare costs with benefits in determining the ‘best technology’ available for minimizing adverse environmental pact’ at cooling water intake structures.”
Full question presented
Full question presented
Full question presentedVan De Kamp, et al., v. Goldstein, 481 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2007)
In this case the Court will examine prosecutorial immunity and whether the top ranks of the prosecutors’ office are liable for not ensuring that the prosecutors share evidence favorable to the defense with defense attorneys per Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. U.S.
Full question presentedPleasant Grove City v. Summum, 483 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2007)
This case involves the display of religious items in public places. In this instant case, the religious sect Summum wants to place a monument of its tenets in a city park alongside other monuments, including the Ten Commandments.
Full question presentedPearson v. Callahan, 494 F.3d 891 (10th Cir. 2007)
The Court will address whether a warrantless search may be conducted by police officers if a police informant is in a home and sees evidence of a crime being committed. The court asked that the parties, in addition to the questions presented, brief and prepare to argue the following question: "Whether the decision in Saucier v. Katz...should be overruled?"
Full question presentedU.S. v. Hayes, 482 F.3d 749 (4th Cir. 2007)
In this domestic violence case, the Court will examine whether the offender and the victim must have a relationship to qualify as a domestic violence crime under federal law and thus subject the offender to restrictions for possessing firearms.
Full question presentedJimenez v. Quarterman, 2007 WL 5022509 (5th Cir. 2007)
The Court will determine whether the 5th Circuit was correct in allowing an inmate to seek a filing extension for his habeas action after the inmate had been denied state court review.
Full question presentedNegusie v. Mukasey, 231 Fed.Appx. 325 (5th Cir. 2007)
In this asylum case, the Court will determine whether a man forced into the military in his home country can be denied asylum because of his military participation.
Full question presentedVaden v. Discover Bank, 489 F.3d 594 (4th Cir. 2007)
This case asks whether a state law based arbitration agreement is within the jurisdiction of the federal court.
Full question presentedWaddington v. Sarausad, 503 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2007)
The Court will determine whether a murder conviction may be reinstated when the federal court overturned the conviction because of the jury instructions given by the state court.
Full question presentedOregon v. Ice, 170 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2007)
The Court will examine whether it is unconstitutional for a judge to hand down consecutive sentences on the facts of the case if the judge, and not the jury, was the finder of fact.
Full question presentedBartlett v. Strickland, 649 S.E. 364 (N.C. 2007)
This case addresses whether a legislative district line may be redrawn to aide a minority group within in the district elect their candidate of choice.
Full question presentedMelendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 870 N.E.2d 676 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)
The Court will address a confrontation clause question: Can a crime lab report be offered as evidence instead of the testimony of the person who prepared the report.
Full question presentedFCC v. Fox Television Stations, 489 F.3d 444 (2nd Cir. 2007)
The Court will examine an indecency law and the FCC's power to ban the use of a single vulgar word in broadcast.
Full question presentedChrones v. Pulido, 487 F.3d 669 (9th Cir. 2007)
The Court will examine whether erroneous jury instructions may be considered a structural error in a federal habeas action and thus require a reversal.
Full question presentedArizona v. Gant, 162 P.3d 640 (Ariz. 2007)
The Court will examine the scope of warrantless vehicle searches incident to arrest.
Full question presentedCarcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2007)
The Court will examine whether the Department of the Interior can place land in trust for Indian tribes recognized as tribes after the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.
Full question presentedKennedy v. Plan Administrator for Dupont Savings and Investment Plan, 497 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2007)
This case examines a no-alienation clause in an ERISA plan when there is a divorce and no QDRO.
Full question presentedLocke v. Karass, 498 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2007)
The Court will examine whether non-union members are responsible for contributing to the national union’s expenses.
Full question presented14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 498 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 2007)
This case will examine whether an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement is enforceable.
Full question presentedHerring v. United States, 492 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2007)
The Court will examine the scope of the “exclusionary rule.”
Full question presentedMetLife v. Glenn, 461 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2006)
The Court will determine whether insurance companies have a conflict of interest when the administer employee disability plans and pay benefits under the same plan.
Full question presentedWyeth v. Levine, 2006 WL 3041078 (Vt. 2006)
The Court will examine whether the FDA regulations for drug labels are adequate.
Full question presentedMeacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 461 F.3d 134 (2nd Cir. 2006)
In this age discrimination case, the Court will examine whether the rating scale used violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Full question presentedCrawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 211 Fed. Appx. 373 (6th Cir. 2006)
The Court will determine whether employees are protected from retaliation if the employee participates in an internal discrimination investigation.
Full question presentedSummers v. Earth Island Institute, 490 F.3d 687 (9th Cir. 2007)
At issue in this case is whether one can sue to strike down a Forest Service regulation or if one is limited to suing programs created under the regulation.
Full question presentedAltria Group v. Good, 501 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007)
The Supreme Court agreed to determine whether state consumer fraud laws may be used to sue cigarette companies for advertising that light cigarettes were better for consumers.
Full question presentedDavis v. FEC (being heard on direct appeal)
The Supreme Court will examine the “millionaire’s amendment” of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The court will determine standing and jurisdiction when it hears the case.
Full question presentedGiles v. California, 152 P.3d 433 (Cal. 2007)
The Court will review whether the Confrontation Clause allows hearsay testimony of a witness who is unavailable for trial because the witness was killed by the defendant.
Full question presentedEngquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 478 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2007)
In this case, the Court will examine whether the “class of one” theory applies to employees discriminated against by public employers.
Full question presentedTaylor v. Sturgell, 490 F.3d 965 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
The Justices will determine whether a petitioner may pursue a claim if a similar claim was pursued in court by someone with similar interests.
Full question presentedSprint Communications v. APCC Services, 489 F.3d 1149 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
This case concerns standing: The Court will determine whether a plaintiff who assigned to pursue a case but will gain nothing from the case has standing to sue.
Full question presentedPlains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle, 491 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2007)
The Justices will examine whether tribal courts have jurisdiction over a case involving a business owned by the tribe and a bank not owned by the tribe but owning land on the reservation.
Full question presentedKennedy v. Louisiana, 957 S.2d 757 (La. 2007)
The Court will determine whether the 8th Amendment was violated when the death sentence was imposed on the defendant despite the victim not having died.
Full question presentedGreenlaw v. United States, 481 F.3d 601 (8th Cir. 2007)
The Justices will decide whether federal judges can lengthen the sentence of a defendant if the government has not requested such an action on appeal.
Full question presentedBridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity, 477 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2007)
The Court will examine whether a victim of mail fraud must prove that he or she relied on information provided by the defendant to prevail in a RICO action.
Full question presentedIrizarry v. United States, 458 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2006)
The Court will examine whether judges must give both sides notice in a case when the judge decides to deviate from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Full question presentedHuber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 493 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2007)
The Court will limit its review to whether a disabled employee who was transferred to an equivalent position can be forced to compete with other employees for the new job.
Full question presentedU.S. v. Ressam, 491 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2007)
The court will examine the prosecutors’ pleas to reinstate part of the conviction against Ahmed Ressam, the “millennium bomber.” Part of the charges were dismissed because the prosecutors failed to prove part of the underlying offense.
Full question presentedFlorida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 484 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2007)
The court will review whether a plan has to be approved by a bankruptcy court before a exemption from state and local transfer taxes may be applied under federal bankruptcy statutes.
Full question presentedIndiana v. Edwards, 866 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 2007)
The court has limited its review to this question: “May States adopt a higher standard for measuring competency to represent oneself at trial than for measuring competency to stand trial?
Full question presentedBurgess v. U.S., 478 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2007)
The Supreme Court will examine mandatory sentences for drug offenders. In this case, Burgess was punished with a 20-year minimum sentence because he had a prior drug conviction that, while it was punishable by two years in prison, was a misdemeanor under state law.
Full question presentedMunaf v. Geren, 482 F.3d 582
Geren v. Omar479 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
(consolidated for hearing)
The court will examine the two holdings by the D.C. Circuit in these cases and rule on whether U.S. citizens being held in Iraq have a right to challenge their detention. Both of these cases involve the interpretation of the 1948 decision in Hirota v. MacArthur, which determined that U.S. courts could not rule on the legality of overseas detentions of Japanese nationals.
Full question presented
Full question presentedDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. 2007)
The Supreme Court will decide whether DC statutes outlawing handgun ownership violates the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals who own handguns but are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia.
Full question presentedRepublic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, 464 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2006)
In a case arising from a dispute over money stolen by Ferdinand Marcos, the court will examine whether a foreign government with sovereign immunity can be an “indispensable” party to settle an ownership claim over assets claimed by the government.
Full question presentedU.S. v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company, 473 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
The court will determine whether a taxpayer, who was entitled to bring a tax refund action in federal court but failed to meet the prerequisites for the action, can bring a direction action for the refund under the Tucker Act.
Full question presentedRothgery v. Gillespie County (Tex.), 491 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2007)
The court will determine whether a suspect’s 6th amendment right to an attorney attaches when the suspect is brought before a magistrate who finds reason to believe a crime has been committed by the suspect and jails the suspect.
Full question presentedDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. 2007)
The Supreme Court will decide whether DC statutes outlawing handgun ownership violates the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals who own handguns but are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia.
Full question presentedChamber of Commerce, et al. v. Brown, 463 F3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2006)
The Supreme Court will examine a California law barring employers from using state funds to influence union election campaigns.
Full question presentedRichlin Security Service v. Chertoff, 472 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
The Supreme Court will address a split in the circuits over whether the prevailing party is awarded paralegal fees at the market rate for the work or at the actual cost of the work.
Full question presentedArave v. Hoffman, 481 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 2007)
The Court will look at remedies available to defendants in capital cases who receive ineffective counsel during plea bargaining.
Full question presentedAllison Engine v. U.S., 471 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2006)
The Supreme Court will address a split in the lower courts concerning whether the Federal False Claims Act applies to misspent funds only when the claims are presented to the federal government or if the Act also applies to claims that will be paid with federal money.
Full question presentedExxon v. Baker, 490 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2007)
In legal action stemming from the 1989 Valdez oil spill, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide on the legality of the $2.5 billion punitive damages award against Exxon. The court will limit review to maritime law issues.
Full question presentedCuellar v. U.S., 478 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2007)
In this case the Supreme Court will determine whether hiding money that is headed out of the United States constitutes money laundering.
Full question presentedQuanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
In this patent case, the court is asked to address whether patent rights were exhausted by license agreements when the licensee sells products containing the patent or whether the holder of the rights may receive royalties from all companies as the patented product continues through the manufacturing system.
Full question presentedKentucky Retirement System v. EEOC, 467 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2006)
This case centers on whether the use of age as a factor in determining disability retirement benefits is “arbitrary” and therefore facially discriminatory under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Full question presentedVirginia v. Moore, 636 S.E.2d 395 (Vir. 2006)
This case involves a man’s successful challenge to a drug charge that arose from an illegal arrest under state law. The lower court’s holding conflicts with several other state and federal courts’ positions on the issue.
Full question presentedDada v. Keisler, 207 F. App’x 425 (5th Cir. 2006)
This case involves an alien who timely withdrew his request for voluntary departure and did not leave the United States when ordered by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court is asked to examine whether this rendered him ineligible for a change in residency status.
Full question presentedGomez-Perez v. Potter, 476 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2007)
The court will examine the lower court’s decision holding that the ADEA does not prohibit retaliation against older federal employees.
Full question presentedAli v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2006)
This case address a split in the circuits over whether an aggravated felony should be classified as a “particularly serious crime” for deportation purposes.
Full question presentedMeadwestvaco v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 861 N.E. 2d 113 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007), appeal denied 862 N.E. 2d 235 (Ill. 2007)
Petitioner sold business to Lexis/Nexis and the court will address whether the tax assessed by the state on the gain is in conflict with earlier case law, the due process clause, and the commerce clause.
Full question presentedCBOCS West v. Humphries, 474 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 2007)
This case addresses whether a race retaliation claim is recognized under § 1981 of the Civil Rights Act.
Full question presentedMorgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility Dist. 1
Calpine Energy Services v. Public Utility Dist. 1 , 471 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2006)
(consolidated)
These consolidated cases concern energy sales contracts and the federal regulator’s ability to consider energy crises when reviewing the transactions.
Full question presented
Full question presentedPreston v. Ferrer, 145 Cal.App.4th 440, 51 Cal. Rptr.3d 628 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)
Court will examine whether the Federal Arbitration Act and early decisions void an interstate arbitration agreement.
Full question presentedWarner-Lambert v. Kent, 467 F.3d 85 (2nd Cir. 2006)
This case stems from a products liability suit and centers on whether federal regulations of pharmaceuticals (Warner-Lambert is owned by Pfizer) pre-empt state law.
Full question presentedBoulware v. United States, 470 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2006)
A tax case questioning how a federal court, when determining the federal income tax liability from that property, should treat a lower court decision that determined property ownership.
Full question presentedUnited States v. Rodriquez, 464 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006)
A question arising under the Armed Career Criminal Act and what qualifies as a predicate offense.
Full question presentedBegay v. United States, 470 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 2006)
This case also involves the Armed Career Criminal Act and asks whether felony driving while intoxicated is a “violent felony” for purposes of the Act.
Full question presentedGonzalez v. United States, 483 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2007)
A Texas case that considers whether rights were violated when the jury selection was permissibly delegated to a magistrate judge without the defendant’s knowledge.
Full question presentedCrawford v. Marion City Election Board
Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007)
(consolidated)
Court will determine whether voter ID laws unfairly keep poor people and minorities from the polls.
Full question presented
Full question presentedBaze v. Rees, 217 S.W.3d 207 (Ky. 2006)
This case calls into question the constitutionality of lethal injection.
Full question presented
The cases are listed in reverse chronological order by date that the petition was granted:
Boumediene v. Bush, Al Odah v. U.S., 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
(combined)
The Court will examine whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 removed detainees’ rights to bring habeas challenges to their confinement.
Full question presented
Full question presentedRiegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 451 F.3d 104 (2nd Cir. 2006)
This case address the divide in the Circuit courts over the impact of FDA approval has on medical device damage lawsuits made under state law.
Full question presentedRowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn., 448 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2006)
This case examines a state law that requires sellers of tobacco products to acquire a license to sell the products and to insure that the transporters they use provide verification that the product will not be distributed to minors.
Full question presentedKnight v. CIR, 467 F.3d 149 (2nd Cir. 2006)
The Court will examine federal income tax deficiencies arising from fees paid by the trust to provide investment advice that were then deducted.
Full question presentedSnyder v. Louisiana, 942 So.2d 484 ( La. 2006)
The “O.J. case”: The Court will examine race-based peremptory challenges to jury selection.
Full question presentedLaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg and Associates, Inc., 450 F.3d 570 (4th Cir. 2006)
The court will examine will examine whether under ERISA a participant in a defined pension plan may sue to recover losses caused by a breach of fiduciary duty and whether any action against a fiduciary by participants qualifies as seeking equitable relief under ERISA.
Full question presentedKimbrough v. U.S., 477 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2007)
This case concerns the disparity in the punishments meted out by federal court judges under the federal Sentencing Guidelines with regards to crack cocaine crimes versus cocaine powder crimes.
Full question presentedGall v. U.S., 446 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2006)
The Court will address whether a federal judge can reasonably choose a sentence below what the federal Sentencing Guidelines suggests.
Full question presentedSprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 466 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2006)
This is an Age Discrimination in Employment Act case where the Justices will decide whether employees not party to the suit may testify that they, too, were subject to age discrimination.
Full question presentedFederal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 440 F.3d 558 (2nd Cir. 2006)
The Court granted cert in this case to settle a difference between the circuits concerning the use of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intake questionnaires as evidence of age discrimination.
Full question presentedHall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc., 196 Fed. Appx. 476 (9th Cir. 2006)
This case addresses the 9th Circuit's decision not to enforce an arbitration agreement that was entered with the district court's approval.
Full question presentedJohn R. Sand and Gravel Co. v. U.S., 457 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
The court granted cert in this case to clear up a jurisdiction question concerning the statute of limitations in the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. 1491).
Full question presentedCSX Transportation, Inc. v. Ga. State Bd. Of Equalization, 72 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)
The court will decide whether a federal district court must accept a State's valuation of railroad property under a federal anti-discrimination tax statute (49 U.S.C. 11501(b)(1)).
Full question presentedAli, Abdus-Shahid M.S. v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 204 Fed.Appx. 778 (11th Cir. 2006).
The court will address a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeal concerning the Federal Tort Claims Act § 2680(c), which provides an exception to sovereign immunity for claims “arising in…the retention of…any other property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.”Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Board of Trade of City of NY, 464 F.3d 255 (2nd Cir. 2006)
This case examines whether futures commission merchants can sue for losses incurred when future prices are illegally manipulated.
Full question presentedDanforth v. Minnesota, 2007 WL 1461083
The court granted cert to decide whether state supreme courts must retroactively apply U.S. Supreme Court decisions to state-court criminal cases.
Full question presentedDept. of Revenue of KY, et al. v. Davis, 197 S.W.3d 557 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006)
This case concerns whether a state can tax the interest earned on other states' bonds, while not taxing the income from its own bonds.
Full question presentedMedellin v. Texas, 2006 WL 3302639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)
This capital case involving a Mexican national re-appears before the Supreme Court to determine whether the Texas state court correctly applied the ICJ orders from Avena following President Bush's 2004 executive order that charged state courts with review and reconsideration of whether Avena applied to their cases.
Full question presentedU.S. v. Santos, 461 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2006)
Examines the scope of the federal money laundering statute (18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)): Does the ban on laundering the proceeds of a crime apply to the gross receipts from the crime or only to the profits?
Full question presentedU.S. v. Williams, 444 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2006)
Whether the PROTECT Act's (codified at 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A) prohibition against promoting material in a manner that reflects the belief, or is intended to cause the belief, that the material contains illegal child pornography is constitutional.
Full question presentedStoneridge Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 443 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2006)
Concerning the scope of shareholders' right to sue under securities fraud law when outside private firms or individuals are involved in the alleged price manipulation.
Full question presentedWatson v. U.S., 191 Fed.Appx. 326 (5th Cir. 2006)
Whether exchange of a firearm as payment for drugs constitutes “use” of the firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) enhancing the penalty for the drug trafficking offense.
Full question presentedBoard of Education of the City of New York v. Tom, 193 Fed.Appx. 26 (2nd Cir 2006) and 2005 WL 22866 ( S.D.N.Y. 2005)
Determining under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ ADA ") and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) when parents of a disabled student are entitled to tuition reimbursements.
Full question presentedWashington v. Washington Republican Party, 460 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2006)
Whether Washington State 's primary contest to select the two most popular candidates for the November ballot is truly non-partisan if the candidates identify their party affiliation on the primary voting ballot.
Full question presented
Full question presentedNew York State Board of Elections v. Torres, 462 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2006)
Logan v. U.S., 453 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006)
Whether New York's use of a convention for choosing nominees to run for judicial office in the general election violates candidates' and their supporters' First Amendment rights.
Full question presented
Testing whether an individual convicted of misdemeanor state crimes with more than two-year jail sentence is to be treated as a career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1) ).
Full question presented