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, MARCH 19 • Morse, et al. v. Frederick No. 06-278 Certiorari to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Questions presented: Whether under the First Amendment schools can prohibit students at school events from displaying messages that support the use of illegal substances. Whether the 9th Circuit broke away from the principles of qualified immunity when holding a public high school principal liable in a lawsuit, after she followed school rules in disciplining the student. For petitioners: Kenneth Starr, Kirkland & Ellis, Los Angeles; and Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Douglas Mertz, Mertz Law Office, Juneau, Alaska. • Wilkie, et al. v. Robbins No. 06-219 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Question presented: In a Wyoming ranch owner’s right-of-way dispute with the federal Bureau of Land Management, can government officials be guilty under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when acting as regulatory authorities? For petitioners: Gregory Garre, deputy solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass.
TUESDAY, MARCH 20 • Fry v. Pliler, Warden No. 06-5247 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Can a trial court’s unconstitutional exclusion of testimony about third-party guilt be deemed harmless error? For petitioner: Victor Haltom, Victor Stephen Haltom A Law Corp., Sacramento, Calif. (Appointed by the Court.) For respondent: Ross Moody, deputy attorney general, San Francisco; and Patricia Millett, assistant to the solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21 • Roper v. Weaver No. 06-313 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Question presented: Given that the Court hasn’t ruled on the constitutional importance of certain penalty phase issues, can the court of appeals overturn a capital sentence on the rationale that the prosecutor’s penalty phase closing argument was “too inflammatory?” For petitioner: Andrea Spillars, assistant attorney general, Jefferson City, Mo. For respondent: John Blume, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, N.Y.
MONDAY, MARCH 26 • Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS DBA Kay’s Kloset�Kay’s Shoes No. 06-480 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: Are vertical minimum resale price maintenance agreements per se illegal under the Sherman Act? For petitioner: Theodore Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C.; and Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Robert Coykendall, Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Wichita, Kan.; and Barbara Underwood, solicitor general, New York, N.Y. (for New York, et al. as amici curiae.) • Bowles v. Russell, Warden. No. 06-5306 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Whether an appellate court may sua sponte dismiss a case that was filed within the time limits that a district court set. For petitioner: Paul Mancino Jr., Mancino, Mancino & Mancino, Cleveland. For respondent: William Marshall, special counsel for the attorney general of Ohio, Chapel Hill, N.C.; and Malcolm Stewart, assistant to the solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
TUESDAY, MARCH 27 • Credit Suisse Securities (USA), fka Credit Suisse First Boston, et al. v. Billing, et al. No. 05-1157 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Question presented: In cases involving private damages actions under antitrust laws, is the application of antitrust immunity in conflict with the securities laws or is immunity unavailable because of a lack of legislation for specific tie-in agreements? For petitioners: Stephen Shapiro, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Washington, D.C.; and Paul Clement, solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Not listed
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28 • Tellabs, et al. v. Makor Issues & Rights, et al. No. 06-484 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Question presented: Must a court consider competing inferences when deciding if a claim involving securities fraud sufficiently shows a “strong inference” that the defendant knowingly acted improperly? For petitioners: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin, Washington, D.C.; and Kannon Shanmugam, assistant to the solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Arthur Miller, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass.

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.