Breaking News

The week ahead

The Court returns from its recess today and is expected to release orders at 10 a.m.  The Justices meet for a private conference on Friday.  Six oral arguments are scheduled for this week, as follows:

Monday, February 22:

  • Astrue v. Ratliff (08-1322) — whether attorneys’ fees award under the Equal Access to Justice Act can be used to cover a separate debt owed to the government by the prevailing party
  • Lewis v. City of Chicago (08-974) — deadline for complaint about the use of an employment test that has a stronger negative impact on minority applicants [Disclosure: Howe & Russell filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners.]

Tuesday, February 23:

  • Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (08-1498; 09-89) — constitutionality of law prohibiting “material support” to designated terrorist groups
  • United States v. O’Brien and Burgess (08-1569) — trial findings on a weapon that triggers a higher criminal sentence

Wednesday, February 24:

  • Carr v. United States (08-1301) — Ex Post Facto Clause application to sex offender registration law
  • United States v. Marcus (08-1341) — validity of conviction based in part on conduct that occurred before criminal law enacted

The schedule of merits briefs due this week follows the jump.

Monday, February 22:

  • Skilling v. United States (08-1394) – petitioner’s reply

Tuesday, February 23:

  • Dolan v. United States (09-367) – petitioner’s brief

Wednesday, February 24:

  • Health Care Service Corp. v. Pollitt (09-38) – petitioner’s reply

Thursday, Feb. 25:

  • Krupski v. Costa Crociere (09-337) – petitioner’s brief
  • Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. (09-448) – petitioner’s brief
  • Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms (09-475) – petitioners’s brief
  • Rent-A-Center v. Jackson (09-497) – petitioner’s brief
  • Doe v. Reed (09-559) – petitioners’ brief

Friday, February 26:

  • Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Lanning (08-998) – petitioner’s reply
  • Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc. (09-223) – petitioner’s reply