Federal Judiciary

October arguments, day by day

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

The Supreme Court on Thursday released the oral argument calendar for the first sitting of the Term that opens on Monday, Oct. 5.  The Court will actually hear an argument before the Term opens — the Sept. 9 rehearing on constitutional questions in the campaign finance case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205). That argument will be held at 10 a.m. that day.  As of now, it is expected that Justice-nominee Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed by the Senate in time to join in hearing this argument, and to be on the bench as the Term begins.

In the October session, the Court will hear three arguments a day on four of the five hearing days, and two on the fifth.  All morning arguments will begin at 10 a.m.  On days when a third case is scheduled, it will be heard at 1 p.m.

Here, with brief summaries of the issues involved, is the schedule for the October arguments:

Mon., Oct. 5:

South Carolina v. North Carolina (138 Original) — participation of non-parties in Original cases

Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680) — limits on police questioning after a suspect asks for a lawyer

Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter (08-678) — right to appeal compelled disclosure of attorney-client communications

Tues., Oct. 6:

U.S. v. Stevens (08-769) — government power to criminalize videos and other depictions of animal cruelty

Johnson v. U.S. (08-6925) — battery as a “violent felony” for sentence enhancement

Bloate v. U.S., (08-728) — calculation of time of pre-trial stages under federal Speedy Trial Act

Wed., Oct. 7:

Salazar v. Buono (08-472) — right to sue to challenge religious movement on public lands

Reed Elvesier v. Muchnick (08-103) — federal court power to approve settlement of a copyright dispute

Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (08-604) — scope of federal court review of arbitration in railroad and airline industries

Mon., Oct. 12 — legal holiday; no oral arguments

Tues., Oct. 13:

McDaniel v. Brown (08-559) — standard for federal habeas review of strength of evidence

Padilla v. Kentucky (08-651) — effect of defense lawyer’s wrong advice on consequences of a guilty plea

Smith v. Spisak (08-724) — unanimity of jury as an issue in finding mitigating evidence in a capital case

Wed., Oct. 14:

Alvarez v. Smith (08-351) — right to court hearing to challenge forfeiture for a drug crime

Perdue v. Kenny A. (08-970) — right of attorneys who win a case to receive higher fees

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on July 16, 2009 (boomark / email).