Breaking News

Feb., March arguments. day by day

The Supeme Court on Wednesday released the schedules of oral argument for the next two sittings — the February and March public sessions.  The February calendar is here; the March calendar is here.  The Court will have one further argument session scheduled this Term, beginning on Monday, April 18.  The morning arguments begin at 10 a.m.; any afternoon argument begins at 1 p.m.

The day-by-day schedules follow the jump, with summaries of the issues at stake.

February sitting

Mon., Feb. 21 — Legal holiday; no arguments

Tues., Feb. 22:

Bond v. U.S. (09-1227) — right of private individuals to enforce Tenth Amendment protection of state sovereignty from a federal criminal law

Freeman v. U.S. (09-10245) — reduction of federal sentence after Sentencing Commission lowered the Guideline range

Afternoon: Bullcoming v. New Mexico (09-10876) — Confrontation Clause violation in allowing crime lab supervisor to testify on a forensic test done by a technician

Wed., Feb. 23:

Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB SA (10-6) — legal standard on patent infringement when the violation has been induced

Madison County v. Oneida Nation (10-72) — local government right to foreclose on Indian-owned lands for failure to pay property taxes

Mon., Feb. 28:

DePierre v. U.S. (09-1533) — types of cocaine crimes requiring mandatory minimum sentence

Stanford University Trustees v. Roche Molecular (09-1159) — right of universities to own patents on inventions resulting from federally-funded research 

Tues, Mar. 1:

Camreta v. Greene (09-1454) and Alford v. Greene (09-1478) — challenge to warrant requirement for interview of a child at school about a sexual assault (consolidated, one hour of argument)

Schindler Elevator v. U.S. ex rel. Kirk (10-188) — right under False Claims Act to access to reports by federal agencies responding to FOIA Act requests (Justice Kagan is recused)

Wed., Mar. 2:

Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, (10-98) — (questions 1 and 2 only granted) — ex-Attorney General’s claim to immunity to lawsuit over detention under “material witness” law (Justice Kagan is recused)

U.S. v. Tinklenberg (09-1498) — method of counting days before Speedy Trial Act requires a trial to begin (Justice Kagan is recused)

March sitting:

Mon., Mar. 21:

Davis v. U.S. (09-11328) — scope of “good fatih” exception to exclusionary rule when a police search was valid at the time but later would have been unconstitutional

Tolentino v. New York (09-11556) — constitutionality of prosecutors’ use of evidence from public records that police checked after making an illegal arrest or seizure

Tues., Mar. 22:

Duryea, PA,  v. Guarnieri (09-1476) –free speech rights of public employees who complain of workplace conditions by formal petition to government

Fox v. Vice (10-114) — right of sued party to collect attorneys’ fees from the suing party, if some claims are dismissed but others, not frivolous, also had been made

Wed., Mar. 23:

Turner v. Rogers (10-10) — right of poor person to attorney for civil contempt proceeding that could lead to jail time; added question on jurisdiction (case was formerly titled Turner v. Price)

J.D.B. v. North Carolina (09-11121) — right of juveniles being questioned at school to warnings under Miranda v. Arizona

Mon., March 28:

Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (10-238) and McComish v. Bennett (10-239) — constitutionality of public subsidies for political candidates in state races (consolidated, one hour of argument)

CSX Transportation v. McBride (10-235) — liability of railroads for injury to workers; scope of cause requirement

Tues., Mar. 29:

Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, et al. (10-277) — scope of right to bring class-action lawsuit for sex discrimination on the job; also question added by the Court

Fowler v. U.S. (10-5443) — proof that federal prosecutors need to convict for murder under a federal law designed to protect those who report crimes to federal authorities

Wed., Mar. 30:

PLIVA v. Mensing (09-993), Actavis v. Mensing (09-1039), and Actavis v. Demahy (09-1501) — right to sue in state court when a generic drug maker fails to change its label to warn consumers of new harmful side-effects (consolidated, one hour of argument)

Talk America v. Michigan Bell (10-313) and Isiogu v. Michigan Bell (10-329) — duty of local telephone company to allow new competitor to link to the existing netork through a connecting wire (consolidiated, one hour of argument) (Justice Kagan is recused)

Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Feb., March arguments. day by day, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 23, 2010, 1:02 PM),