| Name |
Counsel
of Record |
Certiorari To |
DN |
Summary of QP |
Status |
| King
et al. v. Grand River
Enterprises (Note: this case was mistakenly omitted from
the first version of this list.) |
Gary Feinerman SG of Illinois |
CA2 |
1343 |
Whether a court in one State may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Attorney General of another State in certain circumstances. | Denied |
| United
Hauler's Assoc v. Oneida-Herkimer
Solid Waste Management |
Evan Tager Mayer Brown |
CA2 |
1345 | Whether local ordinances mandating the transfer and sale of solid waste to public entities are invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause. | Granted, 9/26 |
| Educational
Credit Management v. Reynolds |
Curtis Zaun Edu. Credit Man. |
CA8 |
1361 | Whether discharging student-loan debt requires, as a threshold, an inability to repay that debt. | Denied |
| Alabama
v. Collins |
Kevin Newsom SG of Alabama |
Ct. of Crim.
App.of Ala. |
1378 |
Whether Davis' clear-invocation rule applies when the suspect ambiguously references a lawyer during an initial Miranda colloquy. | Denied |
| Oregon
v. ASW |
Mary Williams SG of Oregon |
CA9 |
1385 |
Whether Congress intended to create private rights to adoption assistance benefits when it enacted the Adoption Assistance Program. | Denied |
| Warch
v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. |
Lee Boothby Int'l Acad. for Freedom of Religion and Belief |
CA4 |
1387 |
Whether a terminated employee must show that he continues to meet his employer's legitimate job expectations in the prima facie stage of an age discrimination case. | Denied |
| Gonzales
v. Tchoukhrova |
Paul Clement Solicitor General |
CA9 | 1401 |
Whether a parent may qualify for asylum and withholding of removal based solely on alleged persecution of her child. | Gr., Vacated |
| Moore
v. Maryland |
Albert Turkus Skadden Arps |
Ct. of App.
of Md. |
1411 |
Whether an indigent criminal defendant's right to due process of law was violated when he was denied state funds for expert assistance because he was represented by private counsel, rather than a Public Defender. | Denied |
| Dillard's
v. AZPB |
Lloyd Palans Bryan Cave |
CA Ariz.,
Div. 1 |
1422 |
Whether, under
federal principles of claim preclusion
and issue preclusion, an unsecured creditor of a debtor in bankruptcy
is in privity
with the Chapter 7 bankruptcy |
Denied |
| Travelers
v. Pacific Gas and Electric [Consol.
below with DeRoche] |
Eric Brunstad Bingham McCutchen |
CA9 |
1429 |
Whether a litigant may recover attorneys' fees under a contract or state statute where the issues litigated involve matters of federal bankruptcy law. [Disclosure: Tom Goldstein represents the respondent in this case.] | Granted, 10/6 |
| DeRoche
v. Arizona Industrial
Comm. [Consol. below with Travelers] |
Eric Brunstad Bingham McCutchen |
CA9 |
1439 |
Whether a litigant may recover attorneys' fees under a contract or state statute where the issues litigated involve matters of federal bankruptcy law. | Held |
| Beck
v. Pace Int'l Union |
Miller Baker McDermott Will & Emery |
CA9 |
1448 | Whether a pension plan sponsor's decision to terminate a plan by purchasing an annuity is a plan sponsor decision not subject to ERISA's fiduciary obligations. | CVSG |
| AT&T
v. RLH |
Michael Kellogg KHHTEF |
CA Calif.,
4th App. Dist, Div. 3 |
1493 | Whether a State's direct regulation of commercial conduct that occurs wholly outside that State and that has no effect on consumers or markets within that State is a per se violation of the Commerce Clause. | Denied |
| Allred
v. Sup. Ct. of Calif. |
Erwin Chemerinsky Duke University |
CA Calif.,
1st App. Dist. |
1505 |
Whether it violates the First Amendment for a trial court to issue an order in a criminal case preventing an attorney representing a non-party witness from making public statements about a pending case. | Denied |
| Alvarado
v. US |
Lawrence Robbins Robbins Russell |
CA4 |
1512 | Whether "dual sovereignty" principles apply in the Sixth amendment context in circumstances where a person is charged with overlapping state and federal drug offenses. | Denied |
| Quarterman
v. Graves |
Gena Bunn Texas AG's office |
CA5 |
1568 |
Whether a criminal defendant's rights are violated when prosecutors fail to disclose certain statements by a co-defendant. | Denied |
| Acosta
v. Texas |
Roger Jon Diamond |
Ct. of App.
of Tex., 8th Dist. |
1574 |
Whether a Texas prohibition on
the sale of sex toys is unconstituional on Due Process grounds,
especially in light of the holding in Lawrence
v. Texas. |
Denied |
| Schriro
v. Landrigan |
Kent Cattani Ariz. AG's Office |
CA9 |
1575 |
Whether defense counsel has an
obligation to develop and present mitigating evidence in a capital case
when
the defendant actively thwarts counsel's efforts. |
Granted,
9/26 |
| US
Bank Corp. v. Kroske |
Beth Brinkmann Morrison & Foerster |
CA9 |
1607 |
Whether a presumption against preemption permits state laws to apply to national banks despite the preemptive force of the National Bank Act. | Denied |
| Newell
v. Mass. Dept. of Mental Retardation |
Norman Pattis Law Offices of Norm Pattis |
S. Jud. Ct.
of Mass. |
1622 |
Whether a judgment
on the merits and a court-ordered consent decree are
the only form of relief that meet the "judicial imprimatur" requirement
for the
award of attorney's fees. |
Denied |
| Gonzales
v. Duenas-Alvarez |
Paul Clement Solicitor General |
CA9 |
1629 | Whether a "theft offense," which is an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act, includes aiding and abetting. | Granted, 9/26 |
| Corzine
v. Amer. Trucking Assoc. |
Patrick DeAlmeida NJ AG's Office |
CA3 |
1638 |
Whether highway safety regulations that have an incidental effect on interstate commerce are subject to strict scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause. | Denied |
| Wallace
v. Calogero [Consol.
below with Leclerc] |
William Livingston Covington & Burling |
CA5 |
1645 |
Whether a state law that discriminates against nonpermanent visaholding resident aliens ought to be analyzed under strict scrutiny for the purposes of an Equal Protection challenge. | CVSG |
| Washington
v. Washington Edu.
Assoc. |
William Collins Dep. SG of Wash. |
S. Ct. of
Wash. |
1657 |
Whether a requirement that nonmembers of a union must affirmatively consent before their fees may be used to support the union's political agenda violate the union's First Amendment rights. | Granted, 9/26 |
| Petitions Below are |
Docketed 06- |
||||
| Leclerc
v. Webb [Concol. below with Wallace] |
Jeffrey Sarles Mayer Brown |
CA5 |
11 | Whether a state law that discriminates against nonpermanent visaholding resident aliens ought to be analyzed under strict scrutiny for the purposes of an Equal Protection challenge. | CVSG |
| Tomic
v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria |
Paul Wolfson Wilmer Hale |
CA7 |
15 | Whether the "ministerial exception" to federal employment discrimination laws bars the courts from adjudicating an age-discrimination complaint brought by a lay employee of a religious organization. | Denied |
| Detroit
Entertainment v. Romanski |
Tom Goldstein Akin Gump |
CA6 |
38 |
Whether private conduct that is contrary to state policy does not constitute "state action" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983. | Denied |
| Hartford
Fire Insurance Co. v. Reynolds
[Consol. below with Safeco
and Geico] |
Carter Philips Sidley Austin |
CA9 |
82 |
Whether a defendant may "willfully"
violate Section 616 of the Fair Credit |
Held |
| Safeco Insurance v. Burr [Consol. below with Hartford and Geico] | Michael Kellogg KHHTEF |
CA9 |
84 |
Whether a defendant may "willfully"
violate Section 616 of the Fair Credit |
Granted, 9/26 |
| Geico v. Edo [Consol. below with Safeco and Hartford] | Robert Allen Baker & McKenzie |
CA9 |
100 |
Whether a defendant may "willfully"
violate Section 616 of the Fair Credit |
Granted, 9/26 |
| Sinochem
Int'l v. Malaysia Int'l
Shipping |
Gregory Castanias Jones Day |
CA3 |
102 | Whether a district court must first conclusively establish jurisdiction before dismissing a suit on the ground of forum non conveniens. | Granted, 9/26 |
| Perm.
Miss. of India to the UN v. NY |
John Howley Kaye Scholer |
CA2 |
134 | Whether a tax lien on a foreign sovereign's real property is valid when the municipality seeking the taxes does not claim any right to own, use, enter, control, or possess the property at issue. | CVSG Granted |