Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect the Court to issue orders from the October 31 Conference; we do not expect the Justices to issue any decisions on the merits.
Our list of "Petitions to watch for that Conference is here.

October Term 2007

View this list sorted by case name.

October Sitting

Gall v. US, No. 06-7949 [Arg: 10.02.2007 Trans.; Decided 12.10.2010]

Holding:
Kimbrough v. US, No. 06-6330 [Arg: 10.02.2007 Trans.; Decided 12.10.2007]

Holding:
NY Board of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, No. 06-766 [Arg: 10.03.2007 Trans.; Decided 01.16.2008]

Holding:
US v. Santos, No. 06-1005 [Arg: 10.03.2007 Trans.; Decided 06.02.2008]

Holding:
Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, No. 06-43 [Arg: 10.09.2007 Trans.; Decided 01.15.2008]

Holding:
Watson v. US, No. 06-571 [Arg: 10.09.2007 Trans.; Decided 12.10.2007]

Holding:
Medellin v. Texas, No. 06-984 [Arg: 10.10.2007 Trans.; Decided 03.25.2008]

Holding:

November Sitting

Klein & Co. Futures v. Bd. of Trade of NYC, No. 06-1265 [Arg: 10.29.2007 Trans.; Decided 12.28.2007]

Holding:
US v. Williams, No. 06-694 [Arg: 10.30.2007 Trans.; Decided 05.19.2008]

Holding:
Logan v. US, No. 06-6911 [Arg: 10.30.2007 Trans.; Decided 12.04.2007]

Holding:
Danforth v. Minnesota, No. 06-8273 [Arg: 10.31.2007 Trans.; Decided 02.20.2008]

Holding:
CSX v. Ga. State Bd. of Equalization, No. 06-1287 [Arg: 11.05.2007 Trans.; Decided 12.04.2007]

Holding:
Dept. of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, No. 06-666 [Arg: 11.05.2007 Trans.; Decided 05.19.2008]

Holding:
Federal Express v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 [Arg: 11.06.2007 Trans.; Decided 02.27.2008]

Holding:
John R. Sand and Gravel v. US, No. 06-1164 [Arg: 11.06.2007 Trans.; Decided 01.08.2008]

Holding:
Hall Street v. Mattel, No. 06-989 [Arg: 11.07.2007 Trans.; Decided 03.25.2008]

Holding:

December Sitting

LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg, No. 06-856 [Arg: 11.26.2007 Trans.; Decided 02.20.2008]

Holding:
Knight v. CIR, No. 06-1286 [Arg: 11.27.2007 Trans.; Decided 01.16.2008]

Holding:
New Jersey v. Delaware, No. 134 Original [Arg: 11.27.2007 Trans.; Decided 03.31.2008]

Holding:
Rowe v. NH Motor Transport, No. 06-457 [Arg: 11.28.2007 Trans.; Decided 02.20.2008]

Holding:
Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221 [Arg: 12.03.2007 Trans.; Decided 02.26.2008]

Holding:
Riegel v. Medtronic, No. 06-179 [Arg: 12.04.2007 Trans.; Decided 02.20.2008]

Holding:
Snyder v. Louisiana, No. 06-10119 [Arg: 12.04.2007 Trans.; Decided 03.19.2008]

Holding:
Boumediene/Al-Odah v. Bush, No. 06-1195 [Arg: 12.05.2007 Trans.; Decided 06.12.2008]

Holding:

January Sitting

Dada v. Mukasey, No. 06-1181 [Arg: 01.07.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.16.2008]

Holding:
Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439 [Arg: 01.07.2008 Trans.; Decided 04.16.2008]

Holding:
Boulware v. US, No. 06-1509 [Arg: 01.08.2008 Trans.; Decided 03.03.2008]

Holding:
Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, No. 06-1037 [Arg: 01.09.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.19.2008]

Holding:
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., No. 07-21 [Arg: 01.09.2008 Trans.; Decided 04.28.2008]

Holding:
Preston v. Ferrer, No. 06-1463 [Arg: 01.14.2008 Trans.; Decided 02.20.2008]

Holding:
Virginia v. Moore, No. 06-1082 [Arg: 01.14.2008 Trans.; Decided 04.23.2008]

Holding:
Begay v. US, No. 06-11543 [Arg: 01.15.2008 Trans.; Decided 04.16.2008]

Holding:
US v. Rodriquez, No. 06-1646 [Arg: 01.15.2008 Trans.; Decided 05.19.2008]

Holding:
Quanta v. LG, No. 06-937 [Arg: 01.16.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.09.2008]

Holding:
Meadwestvaco v. Ill. Dept. of Revenue, No. 06-1413 [Arg: 01.16.2008 Trans.; Decided 04.15.2008]

Holding:

February Sitting

Morgan Stanley Capital Group, et al. v. Public Utility 1, No. 06-1457 [Arg: 02.19.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.26.2008]

Holding:
Gomez-Perez v. Potter, No. 06-1321 [Arg: 02.19.2008 Trans.; Decided 05.27.2008]

Holding:
CBOCS West v. Humphries, No. 06-1431 [Arg: 02.20.2008 Trans.; Decided 05.27.2008]

Holding:
Cuellar v. US, No. 06-1456 [Arg: 02.25.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.02.2008]

Holding:
Warner-Lambert v. Kent, No. 06-1498 [Arg: 02.25.2008 Trans.; Decided 03.03.2008]

Holding:
Allison Engine v. US, No. 07-214 [Arg: 02.26.2008Justi Trans.; Decided 06.09.2008]

Holding:
Exxon v. Baker, No. 07-219 [Arg: 02.27.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.25.2008]

Holding:

March Sitting

Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, No. 06-1204 [Arg: 01.17.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.12.2008]

Holding:
Rothgery v. Gillespie County, No. 07-440 [Arg: 03.17.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.23.2008]

Holding:
District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 [Arg: 03.18.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.26.2008]

Holding:
Richlin Security Service v. Chertoff, No. 06-1717 [Arg: 03.19.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.02.2008]

Holding: Whether prevailing parties under the Equal Access to Justice Act should be compensated for the market rate of paralegal services or only for the cost of such services to the attorney.
Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, No. 06-939 [Arg: 03.19.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.19.2008]

Holding:
Burgess v. US, No. 06-11429 [Arg: 03.24.2008; Decided 04.16.2008]

Holding: 1. Whether the term “felony drug offense” as used in federal statutes requiring imposition of enhanced mandatory minimum 20 years’ imprisonment when drug offender has “prior conviction for a felony drug offense” must be read in pari materia with federal statutes defining both “felony” and “felony drug offense”, so as” to require imposition of minimum 20-year sentence only if prior drug conviction as both punishable by more “than one year in prison and characterized as a felony by controlling law; 2. When the court finds that a criminal statute is ambiguous, must it then turn to the rule of lenity to resolve ambiguity?
Riley v. Kennedy, No. 07-77 [Arg: 03.24.2008 Trans.; Decided 05.27.2008]

Holding: Whether states subject to Voting Rights Act pre-clearance requirements must receive Justice Department approval before implementing decisions of its highest court striking down previously pre-cleared state laws.
US v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company, No. 07-308 [Arg: 03.24.2008; Decided 04.15.2008]

Holding: Whether a coal company that did not meet the Tucker Act statute of limitations may seek a tax refund (with interest) directly under the Export Clause of the Constitution.
Munaf v. Geren/Geren v. Omar, No. 06-1666 [Arg: 03.25.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.12.2008]

Holding:
US v. Ressam, No. 07-455 [Arg: 03.25.2008 Trans.; Decided 05.19.2008]

Holding: Whether 18 U.S.C. 1844(h)(2), which mandates 10 years in prison for carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony, requires the explosives to be carried “in relation to” the underlying felony.
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, No. 07-312 [Arg: 03.26.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.16.2008]

Holding: Whether a state may tax a court-ordered transfer of property from a chapter 11 bankruptcy estate to a third-party purchaser of the bankrupt party’s assets.
Indiana v. Edwards, No. 07-208 [Arg: 03.26.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.19.2008]

Holding: Whether the Sixth Amendment grants a defendant found competent to stand trial the right to represent himself in a criminal proceeding.

April Sitting

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle, No. 07-411 [Arg: 04.14.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.25.2008]

Holding: Whether Indian tribes’ courts have authority to decide a civil lawsuit that involves business dealings between a company owned by a member of the tribe and a bank that owns land on a reservation, but itself is not owned by a tribal member.
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity, No. 07-210 [Arg: 04.14.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.09.2008]

Holding: Whether plaintiffs who did not rely on but were nonetheless harmed by false statements made to third parties can establish proximate cause in a civil RICO action.
Irizarry v. U.S., No. 06-7517 [Arg: 04.15.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.12.2008]

Holding: Whether a judge must give both sides notice in advance of imposing a criminal sentence that departs from the Sentencing Guidelines.
Greenlaw v. U.S., No. 07-330 [Arg: 04.15.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.23.2008]

Holding: Whether a federal circuit court may sua sponte increase a defendant’s sentence in the absence of a cross-appeal by the government.
Taylor v. Sturgell, No. 07-371 [Arg: 04.16.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.12.2008]

Holding: Whether a FOIA request may be barred by res judicata on grounds the petitioner was “virtually represented” by a close associate who previously sought disclosure of the same documents.
Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343 [Arg: 04.16.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.25.2008]

Holding:
Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, No. 07-474 [Arg: 04.21.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.09.2008]

Holding: Whether traditional rational basis equal protection analysis, the so-called ‘class of one’ legal theory, applies to public employment decisions.
Sprint Communications v. APCC Services, No. 07-552 [Arg: 04.21.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.23.2008]

Holding: Whether a plaintiff assigned the right to pursue a legal claim, but which stands to gain no proceeds from the outcome of the litigation, has established standing under Article III.
Davis v. FEC, No. 07-320 [Arg: 04.22.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.26.2008]

Holding: Whether BCRA’s so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment,” which relaxes campaign finance limits for opponents of congressional candidates spending more than $350,000 of their own money, violates either the First or Fifth Amendments.
Giles v. California, No. 07-6053 [Arg: 04.22.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.25.2008]

Holding: Whether criminal defendants forfeit their Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause Claims upon a showing the defendant caused the unavailability of the witness or upon a showing the defendant’s actions were undertaken specifically to prevent the witness from testifying.
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, No. 06-1505 [Arg: 04.23.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.19.2008]

Holding: Whether, under Smith v. City of Jackson (2005), an employee alleging disparate impact under the ADEA has the burden of persuasion in establishing the contested action was based on “reasonable factors other than age.”
MetLife v. Glenn, No. 06-923 [Arg: 04.23.2008 Trans.; Decided 06.19.2008]

Holding: Whether an ERISA plan administrator that both evaluates and pays claims operates under a conflict of interest that must be weighed on judicial review of benefit determinations.
Term Snapshot
Awards