In the Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Schedule of Oral Arguments

for

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Arguments commence promptly at 9:30 a.m.

Courtroom, RDB 1009

Chief Justice:

• Start of Case:

Our next case is No. ______, [Party] v. [Party]. [Counsel for Petitioner/Mr. or Ms. ___], you may proceed.

• End of Petitioner Argument

Thank you, [Counsel/Mr or Ms. _____]. We now will hear from Respondent.

[Wait for Counsel to Reach Podium]

• Once counsel for Respondent reaches podium

[Counsel for Resp/Mr. or Ms. ____], you may proceed.

• End of Respondent Argument:

Thank you, [Counsel/Mr. or Ms. ____]. The case is submitted.

Mauze & Bagby, P.L.L.C. v. NCDR, L.L.C., No. 14-0526

On Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Issue Presented: Whether the denial of a motion to dismiss under a state anti-SLAPP statute is immediately reviewable under the Collateral Order Doctrine.

Before: Jarone, C.J., and Boren and Wasserman, JJ.

Counsel for Petitioner: Franco Bacigalupo

Counsel for Resondent: Mark Erdman

Aichele v. Constitution Party of Pennsylvania, No. 14-0303

On Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Question Granted: Whether non-major political parties have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state regulations on ballot access by non-major parties.

Before: Palacio, C.J., and Erdman and Wasserman, JJ.

Counsel for Petitioner: Alejandro Leiva

Counsel for Respondent: Ryan Dessler

Rosebrock v. Mathis, No. 14-0423

On Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Issue Presented: Whether agency’s internal emailed recommitment to consistently enforce regulations is sufficient to moot constitutional challenge to regulations.

Before: Hersuatmto, C.J., and Bacigalup and Wasserman, JJ.

Counsel for Petitioner: Alix Boren

Counsel for Respondent: J.C. Palacio

Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Fresenius USA, Inc., No. 14-1028

On Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Issue Presented: Whether Art. III, separation of powers, and the doctrine of Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms are violated when the Patent & Trademark Office determines patent claims invalid on reexamination during the pendency of litigation.

Before: Leiva, C.J., and Dessler and Wasserman, JJ.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ashley Hersutamto

Counsel for Respondent: Joseph Jarone

Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Barlow, No. 14-0520

On Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Case Below: 750 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2014)

Issue Presented: Whether district court order remanding removed case to state court, where remand obtained by attorney misrepresentations, is reviewable on appeal.

Before: Leiva, C.J., and Bacigalupo, Boren, Dessler, Erdman, Jarone, and Palacio, JJ.

Counsel: Howard Wasserman