The latest edition of "Petitions to Watch" features cases up for consideration at the Justices' private conference of June 12. 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 29 and June 5, visit our archives here on SCOTUSwiki.

 

Conference of June 12, 2008

__________________

 

Docket: 07-81
Name: Exxon Mobil v. Doe
Issue: Whether the collateral order doctrine permits an immediate appeal of a denial of a motion to dismiss on political question grounds, where the State Department has expressed concern the litigation could adversely impact U.S. interests abroad.

__________________

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. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner.)

__________________

Docket: 07-962
Case name: Cavel International, Inc. v. Madigan
Issue: Whether an Illinois law barring the possession, sale, importation or exportation of horse meat for human consumption violates the foreign commerce clause.

__________________

Docket: 07-984 and 07-990
Case name: Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al. and Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al.
Issue: Whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may not issue a permit for discharge of fill material otherwise subject to effluent limitations under Sections 301 or 306 of the Clean Water Act.

__________________

Docket: 07-1015 and 07-1150
Case name: Ashcroft v. Iqbal, et al. and Sawyer, et al. v. Iqbal
Issue: Whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, are entitled to qualified immunity against allegations they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

__________________

Docket: 07-1075
Case name: Dupuy, et al. v. McEwen
Issue: Whether the "safety plans" followed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services upon receiving allegations of child abuse violate parents' Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment.

__________________

Docket: 07-1082
Case name: Baker v. Chisom
Issue: Whether, under 42 USC 1983, a complaint not naming the capacity in which a defendant is sued must be construed to name him in his official capacity, notwithstanding the course of proceedings establishing a contrary intent. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-1175
Case name: Burke, et al. v. Brookline School District
Issue: Whether parents of a child identified as disabled under the IDEA can recover compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Rehabilitation Act for alleged retaliation.

__________________

Docket: 07-1209
Case name: Peake v. Sanders
Issue: Whether courts must presume the failure of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to give notice to benefits' claimants to be prejudicial.

__________________

Docket: 07-1315
Case name: Knowles v. Mirzayance
Issue: Whether the defendant's lawyer's recommendation to withdraw an insanity plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel for purposes of federal habeas law.

__________________

Posted in Uncategorized