WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear an appeal in a copyright dispute arising from the movie “Raging Bull,” and it added seven other cases to its docket.
The justices took no action on closely watched cases concerning the regulation of greenhouse gases and whether Argentina must repay some of its bondholders.
The copyright case concerns collaborations between the boxer Jake LaMotta and a friend, Frank P. Petrella, including a book and two screenplays, one of which was called “The Raging Bull.” Paula Petrella, Mr. Petrella’s daughter, contends that these works formed the basis for “Raging Bull,” the 1980 movie starring Robert De Niro.
She did not sue the movie’s owners until 2009, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said that was too late. The copyright law itself would have allowed the suit, as its three-year statute of limitation starts to run anew every time there is a fresh infringement.
The question for the justices, one that has divided the lower courts, is whether the suit should nonetheless have been dismissed based on a doctrine known as laches, which bars suits brought after unreasonable delays.
In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, No. 12-1315, Ms. Petrella’s lawyers said the Ninth Circuit’s approach was at odds with the separation of powers. “Congress, not the courts, is responsible for weighing competing interests and policy considerations and setting a limitations period,” Ms. Petrella’s lawyers wrote.
The studio responded that Ms. Petrella’s long delay “in bringing this action was egregious and entirely unjustified.”
The other seven cases the court agreed to hear, chosen from about 2,000 petitions that had piled up over the summer, mostly involved technical questions over issues like legal fees, taxes and railroads. The justices return to the bench on Monday.
Among the cases is one arising from a federal law that prohibits people from possessing guns if they have been convicted on domestic violence charges involving the use of physical force. The case concerns James A. Castleman, a Tennessee man who was convicted in state court in 2001 of assaulting the mother of his child. Court records do not say precisely what he did or what injuries the woman sustained.
When Mr. Castleman was indicted under the federal gun law in 2009, he argued that his conviction did not qualify as a crime of domestic violence because the state law under which he was charged did not require proof of physical force. A federal trial judge agreed, saying one could theoretically violate the state law by tricking a victim into drinking a poisoned beverage. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., in urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, United States v. Castleman, No. 12-1371, said the lower courts’ approach “will impede the effective and uniform enforcement” of the federal law, as “domestic abusers are routinely prosecuted under assault and battery statutes” that do not require proof of violent physical contact or bodily injury.
The court also agreed to decide whether Illinois may require health care workers who provide home care to Medicaid recipients to pay union dues. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, upheld the requirement, saying the workers were jointly employed by the Medicaid recipients who hired them and the state, which paid for their work and decided what services would be reimbursed.
In urging the Supreme Court to hear their case, several health care workers said that “Illinois is forcing approximately 20,000 personal assistants to annually pay over $3.6 million to support” a union “as their exclusive representative for petitioning the state over its Medicaid policies, irrespective of whether they support that group’s agenda or not.”
The Supreme Court solicited the Obama administration’s views in the case, Harris v. Quinn, No. 11-681. Mr. Verrilli said the Seventh Circuit’s ruling was correct under precedents concerning public employees’ unions, and he urged the Supreme Court not to hear the case.