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, JAN. 10State of Alaska v. United States of America No. 128, Original On exceptions to the report of the special master. Questions presented: Whether the special master correctly determined that the straits and channels separating the islands of the Alexander Archipelago from each other and the mainland are not “historic inland waters” and whether these straits and channels are one or more juridical bays. Also, whether the special master in this case was correct in determining that the United States reserved, and retained in federal ownership at the time of Alaska’s statehood, the marine submerged lands within Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. For petitioner: Jonathan Franklin, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Jeffrey Minear, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. • Dennis Bates, et al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC No. 03-388 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: Does the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act pre-empt any state law crop injury claims? If so, which? For petitioners: David Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Seth Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Washington, D.C.; and Lisa Blatt, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). TUESDAY, JAN. 11City of Sherrill, N.Y. v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, et al. No. 03-855 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Question presented: Whether alleged reservation land is “Indian Country,” where the land was neither set aside by the federal government nor superintended by the federal government. Whether alleged reservation land was set aside by the federal government for purposes of “Indian Country” analysis, where the alleged reservation was established by New York in the 1788 Treaty of Fort Schuyler, and not by any federal treaty, action, or enactment. Did the 1838 Treaty of Buffalo Creek, which required the New York Oneidas to permanently abandon their lands in New York, result in the disestablishment of the Oneida’s alleged New York reservation? For petitioner: Ira Sacks, Gursky & Partners, New York; and Caitlin Halligan, solicitor general, New York (as amicus curiae). For respondents: Michael Smith, Zuckerman Spaeder, Washington, D.C.; and Malcolm Stewart, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). • George J. Tenet, individually and as director of Central Intelligence and director of the Central Intelligence Agency, et al. v. John Doe, et ux. No. 03-1395 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Question presented: Whether a district court is barred from considering respondents’ due process and tort claims that the Central Intelligence Agency has wrongfully refused to keep its alleged promise to provide them with lifetime financial assistance in exchange for their alleged espionage services to the CIA. For petitioners: Paul Clement, acting solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: David Burman, Perkins Coie, Seattle. WEDNESDAY, JAN. 12Dura Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Michael Broudo, et al. No. 03-932 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether a securities fraud plaintiff invoking the fraud-on-the-market theory must demonstrate loss causation by pleading and proving a causal connection between the alleged fraud and the investment’s resulting price decline. For petitioners: William Sullivan, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, San Diego; and Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Patrick Coughlin, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, San Francisco. • Charles Russell Rhines v. Douglas Weber, Warden No. 03-9046 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Question presented: Can a federal court stay a Section 2254 habeas corpus petition, which includes exhausted and unexhausted claims, when the stay is necessary to permit a petitioner to exhaust claims in state court without having the one-year statute of limitations in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act bar the right to a federal petition? Is the 8th Circuit correct that the dismissal of a mixed Section 2254 petition is mandated, or are the appeals courts for the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 9th Circuits correct that a stay of an otherwise timely filed federal petition is permissible in light of the AEDPA? For petitioner: Roberto Lange, Davenport Evans Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, S.D. (appointed by the Court). For respondent: Lawrence Long, attorney general, Pierre, S.D. TUESDAY, JAN. 18Ronald Rompilla v. Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections No. 04-5462 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Question presented: Does Simmons v. South Carolina require a “life without the possibility of parole” jury instruction where that is the only alternative to a death sentence under state law? Whether a counsel’s ineffectiveness warrants habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, where the state court sought to excuse counsel’s failure to obtain any records about the defendant’s history by saying the records contained some information that was “not entirely helpful” regarding the defendant’s traumatic childhood and mental health impairments. For petitioner: Billy Nolas, assistant federal defender, Philadelphia. For respondent: Amy Zapp, chief deputy attorney general, Harrisburg, Pa.; and Traci Lovitt, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). • Robert Johnson Jr. v. United States No. 03-9685 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: When a federal court bases an enhanced sentence on a vacated state conviction, is the elimination of the state conviction a “fact” supporting a prisoner’s claim requiring reduction of the sentence? For petitioner: Courtland Reichman, King & Spalding, Atlanta. For respondent: Dan Himmelfarb, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. WEDNESDAY, JAN. 19City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., et al. v. Mark J. Abrams No. 03-1601 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether damages and attorney fees can be included in the compensations and remedy outlined in the Telecommunications Act in a situation when state and local zoning and land use authorities deny a permit for antenna tower construction, where the Telecommunications Act already defines the remedy as being a speedy hearing of the complaint by a court. For petitioners: Jeffrey Lamken, Baker Botts, Washington, D.C.; and James Feldman, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Seth Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Washington, D.C. • Michael Clingman, Secretary, Oklahoma State Election Board, et al. v. Andrea L. Beaver, et al. No. 04-37 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Questions presented: Whether Oklahoma’s semi-closed primary election law, which allows a political party to invite non-affiliated voters but not voters registered with another party to vote in its partisan primary, violates the 1st Amendment right of a party and its members to associate. Whether the decision in California Democratic Party v. Jones requires that a state allow a party, at its option, to open its party primary election to any registered voter regardless of political affiliation. Whether the 10th Circuit erred in finding that Oklahoma’s restrictions were a severe burden on the 1st Amendment. For petitioners: Wellon Poe, assistant attorney general, Oklahoma City. For respondents: James Linger, Linger & Associates, Tulsa, Okla.

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.