A copy of today’s orders list is now available here. Links to all available certiorari-stage filings in the granted cases are now or will soon be listed after the jump.

__________________

Docket: 07-499
Case name: Neguise v. Mukasey
Issue: Whether the provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that prohibits the granting of asylum to individuals found to have themselves engaged in persecution applies to those who were compelled to do so by threats of deaths or torture.

__________________

Docket: 07-582
Case name: Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al.
Issue: Whether the FCC provided an adequate explanation, or instead acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in changing its policy to permit isolated uses of expletives on broadcast television to be considered "indecent" under federal law.

__________________

Docket: 07-591
Case name: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
Issue:
Whether a state forensic analyst's laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is "testimonial" evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington (2004). (Disclosure: Akin Gump is co-counsel for the petitioner.)

__________________

Docket: 07-689
Case name: Bartlett v. Strickland
Issue: Whether a racial minority group that constitutes less than 50% of a proposed district's population can state a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. (Disclosure: Akin Gump filed the amicus brief of the NAACP in support of the petitioner.)

__________________

Docket: 07-772
Case name: Waddington v. Sarausad
Issue: Whether, on federal habeas review, courts must accept state court determinations that jury instructions fully and correctly set out state law with regard to accomplice liability.

__________________

Docket: 07-773
Case name: Vaden v. Discover Bank
Issue: Whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, a suit seeking to enforce a state-law arbitration obligation arises under federal law if the petition to compel itself raises no federal question but the dispute sought to be arbitrated involves federal law.

__________________

Docket: 07-901
Case name: Oregon v. Ice
Issue: Whether, under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Blakely v. Washington (2004), a sentencing judge violates the Sixth Amendment by imposing consecutive sentences based on a fact not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.

__________________

Docket: 07-6984
Case name: Jimenez v. Quarterman

__________________

Posted in Uncategorized