The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of January 11, 2008. As always, the list reflects the petitions on the Court’s "paid’ docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.

Issues raised in the current list of petitions include whether employees may be fired for cooperating with internal sexual harassment investigations, whether the “Millionaire’s Amendment” to campaign finance laws is unconstitutional, whether terminally ill patients have a constitutional right to potentially life-saving medication, and whether employees may waive past claims under the Family Medical Leave Act. For the full list of petitions on our watch list, continue reading after the jump.

Conference of January 11, 2008

__________________

Docket: 06-1595
Case name: Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville
Issue: Whether and to what extent Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision protects employees from being fired for cooperating with an employer’s internal sexual harassment investigation.

__________________

Docket: 07-259
Case name: Iouri v. Mukasey
Issue: Whether a motion to stay deportation also be necessity includes a request to stay the period to leave the country under an order of voluntary departure.

__________________

Docket: 07-311
Case name: National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, et al. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al.
Issue: Whether the Clean Air Act permits the EPA to impose anti-backsliding measures if the agency has strengthened rather than relaxed an air quality standard.

__________________

Docket: 07-320
Case name: Davis v. Federal Election Commission
Issue: Whether BCRA’s so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment,” which relaxes campaign finance limits for opponents of congressional candidates spending more than $350,000 of their own money, violates either the First or Fifth Amendments.

__________________

Docket: 07-367
Case name: James v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville
Issue: Whether, under Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. White (2006), a jury or a judge is responsible for determining whether an employer violates the retaliation provision of Title VII.

__________________

Docket: 07-371
Case name: Taylor v. Sturgell
Issue: Whether a FOIA request may be barred by res judicata on grounds the petitioner was “virtually represented” by a close associate who previously sought disclosure of the same documents.

__________________

Docket: 07-444
Case name: Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, et al. v. Eschenbach
Issue: Whether, under the Due Process Clause, the government may prevent terminally ill patients from accessing medication that has passed the first phase of the FDA approval process.

__________________

Docket: 07-463
Case name: Summers, et al. v. Earth Island Institute, et al.
Issue: Whether a group of environmental organizations had established standing to contest a series of Forest Service regulations, and whether the challenge was ripe for review under the APA.

__________________

Docket: 07-470
Case name: Robinson, et al. v. Lehman
Issue: Whether two Reno, Nev., police officers were entitled to qualified immunity in the fatal shooting of a driver who attempted to break through a line of surrounding police cars.

__________________

Docket: 07-471
Case name: Ratliff-White v. United States
Issue: Whether, in an alleged fraud of the Veterans’ Administration for health care services never actually preformed, a discrepancy in the indictment over the actual route of the money transfer warrant reversal of a conviction under the wire fraud statute.

__________________

Docket: 07-539
Case name: Progress Energy, Inc. v. Taylor
Issue: Whether Department of Labor regulations preclude employees from waiving past claims, as opposed to future claims, under the Family Medical Leave Act.

__________________

Docket: 07-613
Case name: D.P., et al. v. School Board of Broward County, Fl.
Issue: Whether, under the “stay put” provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, a child transferring into preschool at age three is entitled to continue receiving early-intervention services. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents amici Autism Speaks)

__________________

Docket: 07-619
Case name: PT Pertamina (Persero), fka Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara v. Karaha Bodas Company, L.L.C.
Issue: Whether a federal district court has “ancillary” subject matter jurisdiction to issue an anti-suit injunction barring foreign litigation.

__________________

Posted in Uncategorized