The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Judicial Review Arguments
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)

• ABF Freight System, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board - Oral Argument
  

  After employee Michael Manson gave a false excuse for being late to work, ABF Freight System, Inc. (ABF) fired him for tardiness. Manson repeated his false excuse while under oath at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, during which he argued that ABF had fired him in retaliation for his previous union activities. The National Labor Relations Board reversed the judge, ruling that ABF had used Manson's tardiness as a pretext to fire him. The Board reinstated him with backpay.

  
  

  ABF appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, claiming that the Board could not reinstate an employee who lied under oath. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the Board could determine whether or not to pardon Manson for giving a false excuse.

• Ballard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue - Oral Argument
  

  Under federal law, the Tax Court could appoint special trial judges to hear certain cases and to make recommendations to the Tax Court. The Tax Court judge, under Tax Rule 183(b), had to presume the special judge's fact findings to be correct, but could make the ultimate decision in the case. The special trail judge reports were made public and included in the record on appeal. Only after a rule revision in 1983 did the Tax Court stop making such reports public and exclude them from the appellate record. Whether the final Tax Court's decision deviated from the special judge's recommendations was kept secret. Tax Court Judge Howard Dawson ruled that Kanter was guilty of tax fraud and of illegally diverting money to Claude Ballard, a business associate. In his opinion, Dawson claimed to have adopted the opinion of the special trial judge. Ballard and Kanter separately appealed, objecting to the absence of the special trial judge's report from the appellate record. Two federal appellate courts ruled against Kanter and Ballard.

• Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. Bowen - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Board Of Governors, Frs v. Dimension Financial - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Bowen v. Mich. Academy Of Family Physicians - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Califano v. Sanders - Oral Argument, Part 1
  No details yet.
• Califano v. Sanders - Oral Argument, Part 2
  No details yet.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Dalton, Secretary Of The Navy v. Specter - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Dickinson v. Zurko - Oral Argument
  

  Mary E. Zurko, and others, applied for a patent upon a method for increasing computer security. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) patent examiner concluded that Zurko's method was obvious in light of prior art and, therefore, denied the application. The PTO's review board, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, upheld the examiner's decision. Zurko sought review in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In reviewing PTO's decision to deny Zurko's patent application, the Federal Circuit analyzed the PTO's factual finding using a "clearly erroneous" standard of review, which generally governs appellate review of district court findings of fact (court/court review), rather than the less stringent standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which permit a court to set aside agency findings of fact found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court found the PTO's factual finding to be clearly erroneous. The Federal Circuit then heard the matter en banc. After examining relevant precedents, the en banc court concluded that its use of the stricter court/court standard was legally proper. The Solicitor General, representing the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Q. Todd Dickinson, sought certiorari.

• Dole v. United Steel Workers of America - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Etsi Pipeline Project v. Missouri - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Franklin v. Massachusetts - Oral Argument
  

  Under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, a census must be conducted every ten years and the distribution of Representatives in Congress adjusted to provide proportional representation. The census is designed and carried out by the Secretary of Commerce before the results are forwarded to the President, who determines the number of Representatives each state will receive. In 1990, for only the second time since 1900, the census allocated employees of the Department of Defense who were stationed oversees to the states designated their "homes of record." Massachusetts claimed that this adjustment of the census shifted one Representative from Massachusetts to Washington state. They brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution, arguing that the allocation of overseas personnel to their "homes of record" was arbitrary and capricious under the APA standards and did not meet the constitutional requirement of counting the number of people "in each State."

• Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Heckler v. Chaney - Oral Argument
  

  Several prison inmates convicted of capital offenses and sentenced to death by lethal injection petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alleging that the drugs to be used for their executions were not approved for use in human executions and therefore violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). When the FDA denied enforcement, the inmates brought suit claiming violations of the FDCA and requesting that the FDA be required to take enforcement actions. The district court granted summary judgment to the FDA holding that decisions declining to initiate enforcement proceedings were not judicially reviewable. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, finding that the decision not to begin an enforcement action was judicially reviewable under 5 U.S.C. Section 701(a)(2) and an abuse of discretion.

• Icc v. Locomotive Engineers - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Interstate Commerce Commission v. Transcon Lines - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Lincoln, Acting Director, Indian Health Service v. Vigil - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Lindahl v. Opm - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Maislin Industries, US, Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc. - Oral Argument
  No details yet.
• Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild - Oral Argument
  

  Naomi Marquez, part-time actress, auditioned successfully for a role in a television series produced by Lakeside Pictures. Pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement, Lakeside contacted the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) to confirm that Marquez met the "union security clause" of the agreement that requires union "membership" as a condition for employment. The clause stated one must be a member "in good standing." Subsequently, Marquez was denied the part because she had not paid her dues. Marquez filed suit alleging SAG breached its duty of fair representation with its union security clause. First, Marquez argued she should have been made aware of her established legal right not to join the union, but only to pay for its representational acti