Petitions to Watch | Conference of 3.21.08
The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of March 21. 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. To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, including for the upcoming conference of March 14, check the archive on SCOTUSwiki here.
Issues raised in the current list of petitions include Executive searches of Congressional offices, state law false advertising claims against drug manufacturers, and prison policies limiting transportation for off-site abortions. For the full list of petitions on our watch list, continue reading after the jump.
Conference of March 21, 2008
__________________
Docket: 07-608
Case name:
Issue: Whether, to qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under 18 USC 922(g)(9), the offense must have as an element a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim.
__________________
Case name:
Issue: Whether the Speech or Debate Clause bars the Executive branch from executing a search warrant for non-legislative materials in the office of a member of Congress.
- Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Amicus brief of Scott B. Palmer (in support of the respondent)
__________________
Case name:
Issue: Whether federal law preempts state law false advertising claims against marketing materials based on FDA-approved drug labels.
__________________
Case name: Arpaio v. Doe
Issue: Whether a prison policy against off-site transportation for non-therapeutic medical procedures, including non-therapeutic abortions, imposes an “undue burden” on female inmates’ right to terminate their pregnancy under Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
- Opinion below (Court of Appeals of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Arpaio v. Doe is interesting. I fail to see how the federal constitution requires the state to expend resources to transport someone to have an elective procedure.
Comment by Sean O'Brien — March 6, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Sean, presuming abortions cannot be performed on prison grounds and have to be performed off-site at an abortion clinic (which is not a good presumption but I’ll go with it), nobody is forcing the state to keep the individual in its custody. When the state elects to put someone in its custody, it takes on the responsibility of caring for that person. Now there is no fundamental right or liberty interest in an elective nose job, but there is in having an abortion. Reduced rights in prison only go so far as the reduction of those rights serves a valid penological interest.
If the state doesn’t want to expend the funds to transport an inmate to an abortion clinic, it can release the individual from custody. The constitution doesn’t require states keep inmates in prison until officially released or paroled. And as far as I can tell, the prison policy would still refuse transporting the inmate to an abortion clinic even if the inmate offers to pay all expenses.
Comment by Bruce Moldovan — March 6, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Does anyone know why FCC v. Fox Television Stations INC,et al is not up for reconsideration. Will it be back up for consideration and does it require 5 votes instead of 4 to be put on the docket for a hearing in the fall?
Comment by Danny Evans — March 6, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Bruce, the state has the right to keep the person in custody–so I don’t think you can put the state in that box. I do agree has to “care” for that person. But what we are talking about here is a purely elective procedure, and not letting someone out of prison to do something they want to do is not really denying a right, but simply what happens when your freedom is taken away due to conviction for a crime.
Comment by Sean O'Brien — March 7, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Arpaio v. Doe is an interesting case, but Roe v. Crawford out of the 8th circuit seems to be a better case to decide these issues. Importantly, Arpaio ignores the 8th amendment question, which is where the Third, Fifth, and Eighth circuit are truly split (the Turner test is complicated insofar that the policies may be different regarding what kind of court order is necessary). Hopefully the Court will hear arguments on the Eighth Amendment question.
Comment by Mark Egerman — March 10, 2008 @ 8:32 am
Just piling on here to ask for the collective wisdom re Fox v. FCC. What’s going on?
Comment by Susan Crawford — March 12, 2008 @ 4:24 pm