• 06-889, Oklahoma v. Coddington (Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals)

    Whether the lower court’s interpretation of Lockett v. Ohio violates the holding in Johnson v. Texas that a jury need only “be able to consider in some manner all of a defendant’s relevant mitigating evidence,” and need not “be able to give effect to mitigating evidence in every conceivable manner in which the evidence might be relevant.”

  • 06-892, Yusuf v. United States (3rd Circuit)

    Whether the Third Circuit erred in approving a search where the search-warrant affidavit was not attached to the warrant and the warrant permitted a search for evidence of all “illegal activities” and all “illegal business activities,” without limitations or particularity.

  • 06-899, Fishing Vessel Chloe Z v. Matos (9th Circuit)

    Whether the three-year statute of limitations for maritime tort actions bars a suit filed more than three years after the claim arose, when the plaintiff filed a prior, timely suit asserting the same claim but failed to pursue the claim in that prior suit.

  • 06-907, County Bank of Rehoboth Beach v. Muhammad (Supreme Court of New Jersey)

    Whether a class arbitration waiver in an otherwise enforceable arbitration agreement is unenforceable and must be stricken.

  • 06-923, MetLife v. Glenn (6th Circuit)

    Whether the fact that a claim administrator of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan also funds the plan’s benefits constitutes a “conflict of interest” which must be weighed in a judicial review of the administrator’s benefit determination under Firestone Tire & Rubber v. Bruch.

  • 06-926, Daewoo v. General Motors (11th Circuit)

    Whether a district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit, under the doctrine of international comity and based on the preclusive effect of a foreign judgment, is reviewable de novo or only for abuse of discretion.

  • 06-937, Quanta Computer v. LG (Federal Circuit)

    Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that the respondent’s patent rights were not exhausted by its license agreement with Intel Corp. and Intel’s subsequent sale of the product under the license to the petitioners.

  • 06-939, Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer (9th Circuit)

    Whether California’s regulation of noncoercive employer speech about union organizing (AB 1889, California Government Code � 16645.2 and 16645.7) is pre-empted by federal labor law.

  • 06-954, Arthur v. Allen (11th Circuit)

    Whether the courts below erred in denying a petitioner sentenced to death an opportunity to develop a gateway claim of actual innocence through which he seeks collateral review of his first federal habeas petition, which has never been reviewed on the merits.

  • 06-1127, Media Six v. Ziglar (Supreme Court of Virginia)

    Whether a letter to the editor of a newspaper must be thoroughly investigated to determine whether the statements are true, or the newspaper will be found liable.

  • 06-1202, Doe v. Kamehameha Schools (9th Circuit)

    Whether the respondent private schools’ racially exclusionary admissions policy is subject to the same strict scrutiny applied under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or, instead, is subject to the marginally less demanding scrutiny applied under Title VII of that act.