The Court issued decisions in three cases today and granted certiorari in an additional seven cases for next term.

A copy of today’s orders list is available here.

Today’s opinion by Justice Breyer in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services (07-552) is available here. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito joined.

Today’s opinion by Justice Ginsburg in Greenlaw v. United States (07-330) is available here. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Stevens joined and in which Justice Breyer joined in part.

Today’s opinion by Justice Souter in Rothgery v. Gillespie County (07-440) is available here. Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Scalia joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Summaries of the issues and all available certiorari-stage filings in today’s granted cases are available after the jump.

Docket: 07-512
Case name: Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications
Issue: Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a "price squeeze" claim if the defendant has no duty to deal.

__________________

Docket: 07-543
Case name: AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen
Issue: Whether employers violate Title VII by not fully restoring service credit for pregnancy leaves taken before the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. (Disclosure: Howe & Russell co-represents the respondent.)

__________________


Docket: 07-615
Case name: Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi
Issue: Whether a disputed judgment against a military contractor at issue between Iran and the United States before the Claims Tribunal in The Hague is subject to attachment under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act.

__________________

Docket: 07-1114
Case name: Cone v. Bell
Issue: Whether a federal habeas claim is "procedurally defaulted" because it has been presented twice to the state courts, and whether a federal habeas court is powerless to recognize that a state court erred in holding that state law precludes reviewing a claim. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-1122
Case name: Arizona v. Johson
Issue: Whether, in the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but had no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense.

__________________

Docket: 07-1239
Case name: Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.
Issue: Whether courts below properly enjoined the Navy's use of sonar during certain training exercises for failure to conduct an environmental impact statement over a finding of "emergency circumstance" by the Council on Environmental Quality.

__________________

Docket: 07-8521
Case name: Harbison v. Bell
Issue: Whether the Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act of 2005 provides prisoners sentenced under state law the right to federally appointed and funded counsel to pursue clemency under state law, and whether a district court's denial of such a request may be appealed without a certificate of appealability.

__________________

Posted in Uncategorized