X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Below are cases coming 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, NOV. 29John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich, et al. No. 03-1454 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Does the Controlled Substances Act exceed Congress’ power under the commerce clause in the case of intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for personal medicinal use and the distribution of the marijuana without charge? For petitioners: Paul Clement, acting solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Randy Barnett, Boston University, Boston. • Marlon Howell, a.k.a. Marlon Cox v. Mississippi No. 03-9560 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Question presented: Whether, in capital cases, the court can refuse to give the jury the option of finding the defendant guilty of a lesser offense and therefore prescribe a lesser sentence, if it is recognized by state law and supported by evidence. Were defendant’s claims of Eighth Amendment and 14th Amendment rights properly raised in the Mississippi Supreme Court? For petitioner: William Richardson, Fayetteville, N.C. (Appointed by the Court.) For respondent: Jim Hood, attorney general, Jackson, Miss. TUESDAY, NOV. 30David Whitfield v. United States No. 03-1293 • Haywood Eudon Hall, a.k.a. Don Hall v. United States No. 03-1294 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Does a conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering require commission of an overt act in which “persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy”? For petitioners: Sharon Samek, Tampa, Fla. For respondent: Jonathan Marcus, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. • Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education No. 02-1672 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Whether redress for retaliation for complaints about unlawful sex discrimination is included in the private right of action for violations of Title IX. For petitioner: Walter Dellinger III, O’Melveny & Myers, Washington, D.C.; and Irving Gornstein, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Kenneth Thomas, Birmingham, Ala.; and Kevin Newson, solicitor general, Alabama (for Alabama, as amicus curiae). WEDNESDAY, DEC. 1Richard G. Rousey, et ux. v. Jill R. Jacoway No. 03-1407 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Are individual retirement accounts exempt from bankruptcy estates? For petitioners: Thomas Brixey, Harrison, Ark. For respondents: Colli McKiever, Fayetteville, Ark. • Melvin T. Smith v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts No. 03-8661 Certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. Question presented: Is the double jeopardy clause’s prohibition against successive prosecutions violated if a judge unequivocally rules that the defendant is not guilty because of the government’s insufficient evidence, but later reverses her finding of not guilty? Does a trial judge’s withdrawal of an already granted verdict of not guilty violate the double jeopardy clause? For petitioner: David Nathanson, Boston. For respondent: Cathryn Neaves, assistant attorney general, Boston; and Sri Srinivasan, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). MONDAY, DEC. 6Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al. v. William D. Dotson, et al. No. 03-287 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Can a prisoner claiming that his parole proceedings violate due process bring a claim, even though success would only result in a new parole hearing and not guarantee earlier release from prison? If a federal court judgment orders a new parole hearing, does that “necessarily imply the invalidity of” the decision of a previous parole hearing? For petitioners: Douglas Cole, state solicitor, Columbus, Ohio. For respondents: John Lewis, Jones Day, Cleveland; and Alan Untereiner, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner, Washington, D.C. • Thomas Joe Miller-El v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division No. 03-9659 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: Whether on reinstating on remand from the Supreme Court its prior rejection of the petitioner’s claim, the 5th Circuit contravened the Supreme Court’s decision and analysis of the evidence in Miller-El v. Cockrell, so that an exercise of the supervisory powers under the Supreme Court Rule 10(a) is required to protect against invidious discrimination and to safeguard against arbitrary fact finding. For petitioner: Seth Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Gena Bunn, assistant attorney general, Austin, Texas. TUESDAY, DEC. 6Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Eleanor Heald, et al. No. 03-1116 • Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association v. Eleanor Heald, et al. No. 03-1120 • Juanita Swedenburg, et al. v. Edward D. Kelly, Chairman, New York Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, State Liquor Authority, et al. No. 03-1274 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and 2nd Circuit, respectively. Question presented: Does a state that permits in-state wineries to directly ship alcohol to consumers, but restricts out-of-state wineries from doing the same, violate the dormant commerce clause in light of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? For petitioner Swedenburg: Clint Bolick, Institute for Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent Heald: Kathleen Sullivan, Stanford Law School, Palo Alto, Calif. For petitioners Granholm and Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association: Thomas Casey, Michigan solicitor general, Lansing, Mich. For respondent Kelly: Caitlin Halligan, solicitor general, New York. • Claude M. Ballard, et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue No. 03-184 • Estate of Kanter, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue No. 03-1034 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and 7th Circuit, respectively. Question presented: Can the Tax Court keep secret, even from the reviewing courts of appeals, the findings of fact and credibility judgments of its special trial judges, or does the due process clause or governing federal statutes require that courts of appeals be able to review Tax Court decisions’ complete record, including the trial judge’s findings of fact that, by law, the Tax Court must presume to be correct? Must the Tax Court uphold the findings and credibility judgments of trial judges in deference to the trial judges unless they are found to be “clearly erroneous,” or are these judgments entitled to no deference at all? For petitioner: Stephen Shapiro, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Chicago. For respondent: Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. WEDNESDAY, DEC. 7Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. Livestock Marketing, et al. No. 03-1164 • Nebraska Cattlemen Inc., et al. v. Livestock Marketing, et al. No. 03-1165 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Question presented: Is the First Amendment violated by the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985, and the implementing Beef Promotion and Research Order in their requirement of cattle producers to pay assessments to fund generic advertising with which they disagree? Is this unconstitutional and unenforceable? For petitioners: Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; and Gregory Garre, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. • Darin L. Muehler, et al. v. Iris Mena No. 03-1423 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: For what length of time does a search warrant allow police to detain an arrestee at gunpoint and in handcuffs while police search the premises? How far does qualified immunity cover an officer in such an instance? For petitioners: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C.; and Kannon Shanmugam, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Paul Hoffman, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, Venice, Calif.

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.