Briefs in Five High-Profile Cases This Term
on Sep 27, 2005 at 6:18 am
Of the cases the Court has granted prior to today’s announcement, there are at least five that have generated (or that ought to generate) sustained interest and attention. Three of those five cases raise constitutional questions; the other two raise statutory questions with lurking constitutional undertones. We’ll try to collect here some links to briefs in these cases or (better yet) to websites where such links are collected. The cases are:
1. The Ayotte abortion case, No. 04-1144, concerning the standard of review for facial challenges to abortion restrictions. The case will be argued on November 30th. Note, however, that if Justice O’Connor’s replacement is not confirmed by that date, there is a significant possibility the case will be reargued in the October 2006 Term, because Justice O’Connor may well be the fifth vote on the standard-of-review question and/or the “merits” question.
New Hampshire’s brief is here. The SG’s amicus brief in support of New Hampshire is here. The topside amicus brief for certain Arizona legislators is here. The topside amicus brief of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is here. The topside brief of amicus American Center for Law and Justice is here. The Eagle Forum’s topside brief is here. The topside brief of Harlon Reeves is here. The ACLU’s bottom-side amicus brief is here. If anyone has information on where the other parties’ briefs, and remaining amicus briefs, are posted, please let us know.
2. The FAIR case, No. 04-1152, which concerns the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment. The case will be argued on December 6th.
The Government’s opening brief is here. The SG’s Reply Brief is here. An amicus brief of 40 Harvard Law School faculty members, arguing that the case can and should be decided on statutory grounds because the universities in question are not violating the Solomon Amendment, can be found here. All of the briefs in the case are now collected here, at the bottom of the page.
3. U.S. v. Georgia and Goodman v. Georgia, Nos. 04-1203 and 04-1236, consoldated — a follow up case to Tennessee v. Lane, in which the question is whether title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is a proper exercise of Congress’s power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as applied to the administration of prison systems. The case will be argued November 9th. Note, however, that if Justice O’Connor’s replacement is not confirmed by that date, there is a very significant chance that the case will be reargued in the October 2006 Term, because it’s likely Justice O’Connor will be the fifth vote for the majority, whichever way it turns out.
The Federal Government’s opening brief is here. The SG’s Reply Brief is here. The Brief of the private petitioners is here. Georgia’s brief can be found here. The amicus briefs can be accessed at this site.
4. The O Centro case, No. 04-1084, which involves whether RFRA requires an exemption from the Controlled Substances Act for a church that uses hallucinogenic tea in its religious rituals. The case will be argued on November 1st. Note, however, that if Justice O’Connor’s replacement is not confirmed by that date, there is a possibility the case will be reargued in the October 2006 Term, because Justice O’Connor may provide the fifth vote for the majority.
The SG’s opening brief is here. The Respondents’ brief is here. The SG’s Reply brief is here. Amicus briefs on behalf of the respondent (in favor of the RFRA exemption) can be found here. A topside brief for the Tort Claimants’ Committee, authored by Prof. Marci Hamilton and arguing that RFRA is unconstitutional even as applied to federal statutes, can be found here.
5. Gonzales v. Oregon, No. 04-623, which involves whether the Attorney General permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual’s suicide, even in a state (susch as Oregon) in which such suicide-related distribution is not prohibited by state law. The case will be argued October 5th.
The SG’s opening brief is here. The SG’s Reply Brief is here. Oregon’s brief is here. The brief of Respondents physician and pharmacist is here. The brief of the patient Respondents is here. The ACLU’s bottom-side amicus brief is here. The Cato Institute’s bottom-side amicus brief is here. If anyone knows where other amicus briefs can be found, please let us know.
