Court releases March argument calendar

AMY HOWE FEB 5, 2015 11:50 AM

The Supreme Court recently released its argument calendar for the March sitting, which begins on March 23 and ends on April 1.  The calendar has been updated to reflect the dismissal of Toca v. Louisiana, which had originally been scheduled for oral argument on March 30.  That leaves only one case — Brumfield v. Cain — that day.  A full listing of the cases scheduled for oral argument in the March sitting follows the jump.Monday, March 23

• Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans — whether specialty license plate messages are private or government speech, and whether Texas engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” when it rejected the license-plate design proposed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans
• City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan — whether the Americans with Disabilities Act limits the arresting power of law enforcement officials who seek to subdue someone they know is mentally disabled

Tuesday, March 24

• Bank of America v. Caulkett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona (consolidated for one hour of oral argument) — whether the Bankruptcy Code allows a homeowner who files for bankruptcy to have a second mortgage voided when the value of the house is less than the first mortgage

Wednesday, March 25

• Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, and National Mining Association v. EPA (consolidated for one hour of oral argument) — whether the EPA must consider costs in deciding whether to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities

Monday, March 30

• Brumfield v. Cain — whether a defendant in a capital case has a right to an independent court hearing on whether he suffers from mental incapacity and therefore is not eligible for the death penalty

Tuesday, March 31

• Commil USA v. Cisco Systems — whether a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid is a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)
• Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises — whether the Court should overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se”

Wednesday, April 1

• Harris v. Viegelahn — whether a debtor who has filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 and won approval of a debt-repayment plan, but then converts the case to one under Chapter 7, has a right to a refund of any undistributed funds held by the Chapter 13 trustee or whether those funds should be distributed to his creditors
• Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank — whether a debtor who has filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code has a right to appeal when a bankruptcy court refuses to ratify his plan for repaying creditors

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY