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, OCT. 3 IBP Inc. v. Alvarez No. 03-1236 Tum v. Barber Foods No. 04-66 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the 1st Circuit, respectively. Question presented: Does the Fair Labor Standards Act require that employees be compensated for the time they take to walk to and from the area where they must put on and take off required protective clothing and gear? For petitioner in No. 03-1236 and respondent in No. 04-66: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C. For respondent in No. 03-1236 and petitioners in No. 04-66: Thomas Goldstein, Goldstein & Howe, Washington, D.C. Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation No. 04-631 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. Question presented: Whether Kansas tax on fuel supplied to Indian tribe for its on-reservation gas station is pre-empted by federal law. For petitioner: Theodore Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Ian Heath Gershengorn, Jenner & Block, Washington, D.C., and Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for United States as amicus curiae.
WEDNESDAY, OCT. 5 Gonzales v. Oregon No. 04-623 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the federal Controlled Substances Act bars distribution of controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating individual’s suicide, in spite of state law authorizing it. For petitioners: Paul Clement, solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Robert Atkinson, senior assistant Oregon attorney general, Salem, Ore. Schaffer v. Weast No. 04-698 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Question presented: At an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when there is an impasse between parents of a disabled child and the local school district over the child’s individualized educational program, which side — the parents or the school district — has the burden of proof? For petitioners: William Hurd, Troutman Sanders, Richmond, Va. For respondents: Gregory Garre, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., and David Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for United States as amicus curiae.
TUESDAY, OCT. 11 Brown v. Sanders No. 04-980 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether California’s death penalty law is a “weighing statute” in which the sentencer must weigh aggravating against mitigating factors, and if so, whether the California Supreme Court correctly applied “harmless error” review when it invalidated two of the aggravating factors considered in a murder case, but upheld the death sentence nonetheless. For petitioner: Jane Kirkland, deputy California attorney general, Sacramento, Calif. For respondent: Nina Rivkind, Berkeley, Calif. (appointed by this Court) Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche No. 04-712 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Question presented: Can an entity that is not named or joined as a defendant in a lawsuit nonetheless be deemed to be the “real party in interest” in order to undercut diversity of citizenship in a case that was removed from state to federal court? For petitioners: David Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Gregory Joseph, Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices, New York.
WEDNESDAY, OCT. 12 Garcetti v. Ceballos No. 04-473 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Should a public employee’s purely job-related speech be protected by the First Amendment, or must the employee be acting as a citizen for his or her speech to be protected? For petitioner: Cindy Lee, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence, Glendale, Calif., and Dan Himmelfarb, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for United States as amicus curiae. For respondent: Bonnie Robin-Vergeer, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.