X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Below are the 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. Tuesday, Oct. 7 Linda Frew, et al. v. Albert Hawkins, Commissioner, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, et al. No. 02-628 Certiorari to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether, under the 11th Amendment, a district court must show a federal violation to enforce a 1996 consent decree entered into by state officials. The case began as a class action filed on behalf of Texas children who received inadequate health care under a Medicaid program. For petitioner: Susan Zinn, director, Health Law Project, Texas Rural Legal Aid Inc., San Antonio, Texas; Irving Gornstein, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: R. Edward Cruz, state solicitor general, Austin, Texas. Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of Maryland No. 129, Original Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Question presented: Whether the rights granted to Virginia under the Potomac River Compact of 1958 and the Black-Jenkins Award of 1877 apply to the upstream tidal portion of the Potomac River, allowing Virginia to develop property without applying to Maryland for a permit. The current dispute arose from a plan by Fairfax County, Va., to replace a water pipe with one that would extend 725 feet further into the Potomac. For petitioner: Stuart Raphael, Hunton & Williams, McLean, Va. For respondent: Andrew Baida, Rosenberg, Proutt, Funk & Greenberg, Baltimore. Wednesday, Oct. 8 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. No. 02-658 Certiorari to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether the Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to prevent construction of a major emitting facility where a state authority is prepared to grant the facility operator an air quality permit. The dispute arose after the EPA, a federal agency, attempted to block the construction of an electric generator for a zinc mine in Alaska. For petitioner: Jonathan Franklin, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Raytheon Co., et al. v. Joel Hernandez No. 02-749 Certiorari to the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether employees lawfully terminated for alcohol or illegal drug use must be rehired under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which recognizes drug or alcohol addiction as a disability. Hernandez, a recovering alcoholic, was rejected as a job applicant under the company’s unwritten rule of not rehiring fired employees or those that quit in lieu of being fired. For petitioner: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C.; Paul Clement, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Stephen Montoya, Law Office of Stephen Montoya, Phoenix. Tuesday, Oct. 14 Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration v. Pauline Thomas No. 02-763 Certiorari to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether the Social Security commissioner may determine that a person is not disabled, and thereby not entitled to receive disability insurance, because the person remains physically and mentally able to perform her previous job as elevator operator, even though the job may no longer exist in the national economy. For petitioner: Jeffrey Lamken, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Abraham Alter, Langton & Alter, Rahway, N.J. Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko No. 02-682 Certiorari to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the district court’s dismissal of respondent’s antitrust claims? The case began from the claim that Bell Atlantic, which owned phone wires used by AT&T, deliberately hindered AT&T’s efforts to offer local service in New York. Trinko, an AT&T customer, claims that the poor service he received was an effort by Bell Atlantic (now called Verizon) to maintain a monopoly, thereby violating the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. For petitioner: Richard Taranto, Farr & Taranto, Washington, D.C.; Theodore Olson, solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Donald Verrilli Jr., Jenner & Block, Washington, D.C. Wednesday, Oct. 15 United States v. Lashawn Lowell Banks No. 0-473 Certiorari to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search for illegal drugs violated the Fourth Amendment clause against unreasonable search and seizure when officers forcibly entered a small apartment in the middle of the afternoon 15 to 20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence. For petitioner: David Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Randall Roske, Law Office of Randall Roske, Las Vegas. Hernan O’Ryan Castro v. United States No. 02-6683 Certiorari to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: When a district court reclassifies a pro se federal prisoner’s first post-conviction motion as a habeas petition, does this make the prisoner’s subsequent attempt to file a habeas petition a “second or successive petition” under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act? For petitioner: Michael Frick, Hall Booth, Smith & Slover, Brunswick, Ga. For respondent: Dan Himmelfarb, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, 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.