USATODAY.com

FindLaw: Supreme Court Center: Docket: December 2005 Cases [an error occurred while processing this directive]

Supreme Court Docket



Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled

December 2005

[Download December 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2004 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.

Monday, December 5

Terry L. Whitman v. Department of Transportation, et al.
No. 04-1131

Subject:

    Neogiated Grievance Procedures, Federal Collective Bargaining, Judical Review, Civil Service Reform Act, Equitable Relief
Questions:
  1. Whether 5 U.S.C. § 7121(a)'s provision that the negotiated grievance procedures of a federal collective bargaining agreement be "the exclusive administrative procedures" to resolve grievances precludes an employee from seeking direct judicial redress when he would otherwise have an independent basis for judicial review of his claims.

  2. Whether the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101 et seq., precludes federal courts from granting equitable relief for constitutional claims brought by federal employees against their employer.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
    [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Whitman:
Thomas C. Goldstein
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC
For Respondents Department of
    Transportation, et al.:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC

Bertram Rice, Warden, et al. v. Steven Martell Collins
No. 04-52

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus, Presumption of Correctness, State Fact Finding
Question:
    Does 28 U.S.C. § 2254 allow a federal habeas corpus court to reject the presumption of correctness for state fact finding, and condemn a state-court adjudication as an unreasonable determination of the facts, where a rational fact finder could have determined the facts as did the state court?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Rice, et al.:
Erika D. Jackson
Deputy Attorney General
Los Angeles, CA
For Respondent Collins:
Mark R. Drozdowski
Deputy Federal Public Defender
Los Angeles, CA

Tuesday, December 6

Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., et al.
No. 04-1152

Subject:

    Solomon Amendment, Equal Access, Federal Funds, Institutions of Higher Education, Military Recruiters, First Amendment
Question:
    The Solomon Amendment, 10 U .S.C. 983(b)(1), withholds specified federal funds from institutions of higher education that deny military recruiters the same access to campuses and students that they provide to other employers. The question presented is whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Solomon Amendment's equal access condition on federal funding likely violates the First Amendment to the Constitution and in directing a preliminary injunction to be issued against its enforcement.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Rumsfeld, et al.:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondents Forum for Academic and
    Institutional Rights, Inc., et al.:
E. Joshua Rosenkranz
Heller Ehrman LLP
New York, NY

Domino's Pizza, Inc., et al. v. John McDonald
No. 04-593

Subject:

Question:
    In the absence of a contractual relationship with the defendant, are allegations of personal injuries alone sufficient to confer standing on a plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Domino's Pizza, Inc., et al.:
Maureen E. Mahoney
Latham & Watkins LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent McDonald:
Allen Lichtenstein
Las Vegas, NV

Wednesday, December 7

Oregon v. Randy Lee Guzek
No. 04-928

Subject:

    Death Penalty, Eight Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Residual-Doubt, Penalty Phase
Question:
    Does a capital defendant have a right under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to offer evidence and argument in support of a residual-doubt claim - that is, that the jury in a penalty-phase proceeding should consider doubt about the defendant's guilt in deciding whether to impose the death penalty?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Oregon:
Mary H. Williams
State Solicitor General
Salem, OR
For Respondent Guzek:
Richard L. Wolf
Portland, OR

Kansas v. Michael Lee Marsh, II
No. 04-1170

Subject:

    Death Penalty, Sentencing Statute, Mitigating and Aggravating Evidence, Jurisdiction, State Court Judgment
Questions:
  1. Does it violate the Constitution for a state capital sentencing statute to provide for the imposition of the death penalty when the sentencing jury determines that the mitigating and aggravating evidence is in equipoise?

  2. Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257, as construed by Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)?

  3. Was the Kansas Supreme Court's judgment adequately supported by a ground independent of federal law?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Kansas:
Jared Scoville Maag
Deputy Attorney General
Topeka, KS
For Respondent Marsh:
Rebecca E. Woodman
Capital Appellate Defender Office
Topeka, KS

 

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled

 

To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader

[an error occurred while processing this directive]