X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Below are cases before the Supreme Court in the coming weeks and the lawyers who will argue them. “Docket Watch” appears at the beginning of each two-week argument cycle when the high court hears cases. MONDAY, MARCH 24 Nguyen v. United States, et al. Phan v. United States Nos. 01-10873 and 02-5034 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the ruling upholding defendants’ convictions is invalid because the appeals panel that issued it included a jurist who is not an Article III judge, in this case a territorial court judge from the Northern Mariana Islands. For petitioners: Jeffrey Green, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Patricia Millett, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Wiggins v. Smith, et al. No. 02-311 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Question presented: Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment by not conducting background investigations and presenting possibly mitigating evidence at a capital sentencing hearing, due to the lawyer’s belief that to do either would undercut the defense strategy of raising doubt about the defendant’s guilt. For petitioner: Donald Verrilli Jr., Jenner & Block, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Gary E. Bair, solicitor general, Baltimore; and Dan Himmelfarb, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). TUESDAY, MARCH 25 Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, et al. No. 02-403 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the Federal Election Campaign Act’s prohibitions on corporate and labor union campaign contributions violate the First Amendment when applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy. For petitioner: Paul Clement, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: James Bopp Jr., Bopp, Coleson & Bolstrum, Terre Haute, Ind. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26 Overton, et al. v. Bazzetta, et al. No. 02-94 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the Michigan Department of Corrections’ restrictions on prisoners’ noncontact visitations violate the First, Eighth, and 14th amendments. For petitioners: Thomas Casey, solicitor general, Lansing, Mich.; and Jeffrey Lamken, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Deborah LaBelle, Ann Arbor, Mich. Lawrence, et al. v. Texas No. 02-102 Certiorari to the Texas Court of Appeals for the 14th District. Question presented: Whether defendants’ criminal convictions under Texas’ “homosexual conduct” law � which criminalizes sexual acts by same-sex couples � violate equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment. For petitioner: Paul Smith, Jenner & Block, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Charles Rosenthal Jr., district attorney, Harris County, Texas. MONDAY, MARCH 31 Inyo County, et al. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians, et al. No. 02-281 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Questions presented: Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enables Indian tribes and their commercial businesses to prohibit searches of their property by law enforcement officials for evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation state crimes; whether such a search by state law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe’s civil rights that is actionable under federal law and, if so, whether the state law enforcement officers who conducted the search are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. For petitioners: John Kirby, San Diego; and Barbara McDowell, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Reid Peyton Chambers, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, Washington, D.C. Stogner v. California No. 01-1757 Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District. Question presented: Whether a California statute that retroactively changes the statute of limitations, and thus revives a previously expired cause of action in a criminal case, violates the ex post facto and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. For petitioner: Roberto Najera, La Raza Centro Legal, San Francisco. For respondent: Janet Gaard, special assistant attorney general, Sacramento, Cal.; and Irving Gornstein, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). TUESDAY, APRIL 1 Grutter v. Bollinger, et al. No. 02-241 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Questions presented: Whether the University of Michigan Law School’s use of racial preferences in student admissions violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and federal anti-discrimination statutes; whether an appellate court that is required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences should review district court findings de novo when the factual issues are constitutional in nature. For petitioner: Kirk Kolbo, Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, Minneapolis; and Theodore Olson, solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Maureen Mahoney, Latham & Watkins, Washington, D.C. Gratz, et al. v. Bollinger, et al. No. 02-516 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and federal anti-discrimination statutes. For petitioners: Kirk Kolbo, Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, Minneapolis; and Theodore Olson, solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: John Payton, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2 Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard No. 02-337 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act can be removed by a defendant to a U.S. district court, even though the act expressly provides that the case can be “maintained” in state court. For petitioner: Donald Pinaud Jr., Kattman & Pinaud, Jacksonville, Fla. For respondent: Andrew Hament, Gray, Harris & Robinson, Melbourne, Fla.; and Lisa Blatt, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film, et al. No. 02-428 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the Lanham Act protects creative works from uncredited copying, even without the likelihood of consumer confusion. For petitioner: David Gerber, Oxnard, Calif.; and Gregory Garre, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Dale Cendali, O’Melveny & Myers, New York.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.