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, APRIL 16 • Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, et al. No. 05-85 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether an entity that is entirely owned by a foreign government’s instrumentality qualifies for “organ for a foreign state” status under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. For petitioner: David Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C.; Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, assistant to the solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Leonard Simon, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, San Diego. • Long Island Care at Home, et al. v. Evelyn Coke No. 06-593 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Question presented: Did the court incorrectly disregard an established Labor Department regulation because it was labeled “interpretations”? For petitioners: H. Bartow Farr III, Farr & Taranto, Washington, D.C.; David Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Harold Craig Becker, The Law Office of Craig Becker, Chicago.
TUESDAY, APRIL 17 • National Association of Home Builders, et al. v. Defenders of Wildlife, et al. • Environmental Protection Agency v. Defenders of Wildlife, et al. Nos. 06-340 and 06-549 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Questions presented: Can a court add additional criteria to a section of the Clean Water Act requiring state programs to protect endangered species? Is Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act an independent source of authority? For petitioners: Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Eric Glitzenstein, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, Washington, D.C. • Michael W. Sole, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al. v. T.A. Wyner, et al. No. 06-531 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Whether a preliminary injunction is relief on the merits. For petitioners: Virginia Seitz, Sidley Austin, Washington, D.C.; Patricia Millett, assistant to the solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Seth Galanter, Morrison & Foerster, Washington, D.C. • Jeffrey Uttecht, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary v. Cal Coburn Brown No. 06-413 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Did the 9th Circuit err by not considering the trial judge’s opinions when deciding whether the removal of a juror was correct? For petitioners: John Samson, assistant attorney general, Olympia, Wash.; and Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Suzanne Lee Elliott, Law Office of Suzanne Lee Elliott, Seattle.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18 • Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association v. Brentwood Academy No. 06-427 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Did the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association violate the First Amendment and due process rights of Brentwood Academy by penalizing the academy for not following recruiting rules? For petitioner: Maureen Mahoney, Latham & Watkins, Washington, D.C.; Dan Himmelfarb, assistant to the solicitor general, Justice Department, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: James Blumstein, Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville, Tenn. • Scott Louis Panetti v. Nathaniel Quarterman, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division No. 06-6407 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Question presented: Does the Eighth Amendment allow the execution of an inmate who, because of a mental illness, cannot understand that his execution is meant as retribution for his crimes? For petitioner: Gregory Wiercioch, Texas Defender Service, San Francisco. For respondent: R. Ted Cruz, solicitor general of Texas, Austin, Texas.

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.