The latest edition of "Petitions to Watch" features cases up for consideration at the Justices' private conference of May 22. 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 the lists for the upcoming conferences of May 8 and 15, visit our archives here on SCOTUSwiki.

 

Conference of May 22, 2008

__________________

Docket: 07-976
Case name:
T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al. v. Laster, et al.
Issue: Whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, federal courts may refuse to enforce class-action bans in consumer contract arbitration provisions on grounds they are unconscionable under state law.

__________________

Docket: 07-977
Case name: Warner v. United States
Issue: Whether, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, a trial court may remove jurors during deliberations for misrepresenting their own criminal background during voir dire but where an objective possibility exists their removal was based on their view of the merits.

__________________

Docket: 07-1090
Case name: Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, et al.
Issue: Whether U.S. Courts have jurisdiction over Iraq in claims involving alleged misdeeds that occurred during Saddam Hussein's regime.

__________________

Docket: 07-1111
Case name: The Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc., et al. v. City of Long Branch, New Jersey
Issue: Whether, under the First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, municipalities may exclude religious groups from particular zones while allowing some secular groups.

__________________

Docket: 07-1214
Case name: Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgina Enterprise Limited
Issue: Whether, under 35 U.S.C. 24, a trial judge may subpoena foreign witnesses for deposition in the United States based on their filing of an application with the Patent and Trademark Office.

__________________

Docket: 07-1216
Case name: Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court of Oregon, on remand from the Court's 2007 decision on the constitutionality of a $79.5 million punitive damages award based on harms done to non-named plaintiffs, improperly asserted a state law procedural bar having the effect of precluding Phillip Morris from asserting a constitutional claim.

__________________

Posted in Everything Else