HealthLawProf Blog

Editor: Katharine Van Tassel
Akron Univ. School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Sunday, October 2, 2005

Supreme Court's Health Law Docket, 2005 Term

Here's the lineup as of Monday morning, the beginning of the Court's new Term.  Links to primary materials are courtesy of the outstanding web site maintained by the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.

  • 04-0623, Gonzales, Alberto, Atty. Gen., et al. v. Oregon, et al.
    Oral argument: 10-05-05 
    Court below: 9th Cir., May 26, 2004
    Question presented: Whether the Attorney General has permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and its implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual's suicide, regardless of a state law purporting to authorize such distribution?
    9th Circuit opinion (May 26, 2004)[pdf file]
    Petition for certiorari - U.S.
    Appendix to petition for certiorari - U.S.
    Reply brief - U.S.
    AP coverage of the case
    Law.com coverage of the case
  • 04-1144, Ayotte, Kelly (New Hampshire Atty. Gen.) v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al.
    Oral argument: 11-30-05 
    Court below: 1st Cir., Nov. 24, 2004
    Issues: Abortion, parental notification, minors, judicial bypass
    Questions presented: (1) Did the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals apply the correct standard in a facial challenge to a statute regulating abortion when it ruled that the undue burden standard cited in Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 876-77 (1992) and Stenburg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 921 (2000) applied rather than the “no set of circumstances” standard set forth in U.S. v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)? (2) Whether the New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann 132:24-28 (2003) preserves the health and life of the minor through the Act’s judicial bypass mechanism and/or other state statutes?
    1st Circuit opinion (Nov. 24, 2004)
    1992 Supreme Court opinion in Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey
    2000 Supreme Court opinion in Stenburg v. Carhart
    1987 Supreme Court opinion in U.S. v. Salerno
  • 04-1203, U.S. v. Georgia, et al. & 04-1236, Goodman, Tony v. Georgia, et al.
    Oral argument: 11-09-05 
    Court below: 11th Cir., Sept. 16, 2004
    Questions presented: (1) Whether, and to what extent, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq., validly abrogates state sovereign immunity for suits by prisoners with disabilities challenging discrimination by state-operated prisons? (2) Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12131 to 12165, is a proper exercise of Congress's power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, as applied to the administration of prison systems?
    Petition for certiorari - U.S.
    11th Circuit opinion (Sept. 16, 2004)[unpublished]
  • 04-1244, Scheidler, Joseph, et al. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al. & 04-1352, Operation Rescue v. NOW
    Oral argument: 11-30-05 
    Court below: 7th Cir., Jan. 28, 2005
    Questions presented: (1) Whether the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, on remand, disregarded the Supreme Court's mandate by holding that "all" of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a RICO violation were not reversed, that the "judgment that petitioners violated RICO" was not necessarily reversed, and that the "injunction issued by the District Court" might not need to be vacated? (2) Whether the 7th Circuit correctly held, in conflict with decision of the 6th and 9th Circuits, that the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1951(a), can be read to punish acts or threats of physical violence against "any person or property" in a manner that "in any way or degree***affects commerce," even if such acts or threats of violence are wholly unconnected to either extortion or robbery? (3) Whether injunctive relief is available in a private civil action for treble damages brought under RICO, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1964(c)?
    7th Circuit opinion (Jan. 28, 2005)
    Earlier 2003 Supreme Court case
  • 04-1506, Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, et al. v. Ahlborn, Heidi
    Oral argument: unscheduled (cert. granted, Sept. 27, 2005)
    Court below: 8th Cir.,Feb. 9, 2005
    Issues: Settlement, Medicaid, reimbursements (I'm still trying to track down the cert. petition)
    8th Circuit opinion (Feb. 9, 2005)

[tm]

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/10/supreme_courts_.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d8351fdbc353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supreme Court's Health Law Docket, 2005 Term: