PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases offers expert analysis of the issues, background, and significance of every case slated for argument in the Supreme Court.
As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:
Does a floating structure that is indefinitely moored, receives power and other utilities from shore, and is not intended to be used in maritime transportation or commerce constitute a "vessel" under 1 U.S.C. § 3, thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction?
s
Does a sentencing court violate the Ex Post Facto Clause by using the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing rather than the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, if the newer Guidelines create a significant risk that the defendant will receive a longer sentence?
Did the court of appeals err 1) in creating a new, heightened preemption test under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution ("the Elections Clause") that is contrary to this Court's authority and conflicts with other circuit court decisions, and 2) in holding that under that test the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that requests persons who are registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote?
Did Congress's decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceed its authority under the Fifteenth Amendment and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Shelby County, Alabama
- Brief for the City of New York, the Council of the City of New York, Michael R. Bloomberg, in his Capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, and Christine C. Quinn, in her Official Capacity as the Speaker of the City Council of the City of New York in Support of Respondents
1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding, contrary to the decisions of five other Circuit Courts of Appeals, that a party may not raise the Takings Clause as a defense to a "direct transfer of funds mandated by the Government," Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 521 (1998) (plurality), but instead must pay the money and then bring a separate, later claim requesting reimbursement of the money under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims?
2. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding, contrary to a decision of the Federal Circuit, that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioners' takings defense, even though petitioners, as "handlers" of raisins under the Raisin Marketing Order, are statutorily required under 7 U.S.C. § 608c(15) to exhaust all claims and defenses in administrative proceedings before the United States Department of Agriculture, with exclusive jurisdiction for review in federal district court?
2. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding, contrary to a decision of the Federal Circuit, that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioners' takings defense, even though petitioners, as "handlers" of raisins under the Raisin Marketing Order, are statutorily required under 7 U.S.C. § 608c(15) to exhaust all claims and defenses in administrative proceedings before the United States Department of Agriculture, with exclusive jurisdiction for review in federal district court?
- Brief for Respondent United States Department of Agriculture
- Brief for International Municipal Lawyers Association in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Sun-Maid Growers of California in Support of Respondent
Does the Federal Arbitration Act permits courts, invoking the "federal substantive law of arbitrability," to invalidate arbitration agreements on the ground that they do not permit class arbitration of a federal-law claim?
- Reply Brief for Petitioners American Express Company, et al.
- Brief for Antitrust Scholars in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the United States in Support of Respondents
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman?
Does the Fourth Amendment allow the states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes?
Does Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state?
Does the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprive this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case and does the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives have Article III standing in this case?
- Brief for the Beverly Lahaye Institute and the National Legal Foundation in support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Addressing the Merits)
- Brief for Dovid Z. Schwartz in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives
- Brief for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (Addressing the Merits)
Are human genes patentable?
(Source: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home.html )
No comments:
Post a Comment