The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of June 19 — the final scheduled conference before the summer recess. 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 June 5 and June 12, visit our archives here on SCOTUSwiki.

Issues raised in our current list include whether Title VII creates liability for allegedly discriminatory teacher qualification tests, federal courts’ jurisdiction to weigh the constitutionality of South Carolina’s anti-gambling laws, due process concerns over deporting aliens under a retroactive definition of “conviction,” and the environmental implications of the Navy’s use of sonar testing. For the full list of petitions on our watch list, continue reading after the jump.

Conference of June 19, 2008

__________________

Docket: 06-1458
Case name:
Geddes, et ux. v. United Staffing Alliance Employee Medical Plan, et al.
Issue: Whether, under ERISA, courts should apply a deferential standard of review to denial of medical benefits where the plan gives the named fiduciary discretionary authority to decide benefit claims but where a non-fiduciary agent with no discretionary authority makes the final benefit decision.

__________________

Docket: 07-270
Case name: Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. Gulino, et al.
Issue: Whether the New York City school district can face liability under Title VII for allegedly discriminatory teacher qualification tests.

__________________

Docket: 07-373
Case name: Clark County, Nev. v. Vacation Village, Inc., et al.
Issue: Whether Nevada can require compensation to property owners subject to building height restrictions near the Las Vegas airport, or whether such a requirement is preempted by federal aviation law.

__________________

Docket: 07-512
Case name: Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications
Issue: Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a "price squeeze" claim if the defendant has no duty to deal.

__________________

Docket: 07-543
Case name: AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen
Issue: Whether employers violate Title VII by not fully restoring service credit for pregnancy leaves taken before the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. (Disclosure: Howe & Russell co-represents the respondent.)

__________________


Docket: 07-615
Case name: Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi
Issue: Whether a disputed judgment against a military contractor at issue between Iran and the United States before the Claims Tribunal in The Hague is subject to attachment under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act.

__________________


Docket: 07-618
Case name: Goss International Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho
Issue: Whether a federal district court has "ancillary" subject matter jurisdiction to issue an anti-suit injunction barring foreign litigation.

__________________


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.

__________________

Docket: 07-841
Case name: Amschwand v. Spherion Corp., et al.
Issue: Whether an action by a plan beneficiary against a plan fiduciary for monetary relief equal to the insurance benefits that the beneficiary would have received absent the fiduciary’s breach of fiduciary duty seeks "equitable relief" under ERISA.

__________________

Docket: 07-867
Case name: National Parks Conservation Association, et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority
Issue:
Whether environmental groups' suit against the TVA for operating a coal plant without a permit were time-barred under federal law.

__________________

Docket: 07-1074
Case name: Stewart, et al. v. Martin, et al.
Issue: Whether, under Burford v. Sun Oil Co. (1943), federal courts should abstain from resolving a constitutional challenge to South Carolina's anti-gambling laws.

__________________

Docket: 07-1116
Case name: Aguilar v. Mukasey
Issue: Whether, under INS v. St. Cyr (2001), the elimination of section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has an impermissible retroactive effect on aliens found guilty after a jury trial prior to its repeal, and whether, under the Due Process Clause, Congress may retroactively apply a new definition of "conviction" to an alien who forfeited a right to appeal on the basis of a prior definition.

__________________

Docket: 07-1178
Case name: Hjortness v. Neenah Joint School District
Issue: Whether, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, school districts may predetermine a child's placement before meeting with his or her parents.

 

__________________

Docket: 07-1194
Case name: Henley v. Bell
Issue: Whether, for habeas purposes, a defendant's Due Process right to challenge the discriminatory composition of a grand jury was not sufficiently dictated by Supreme Court precedent in 1990, when his conviction became final, and whether the defendant's counsel was ineffective at sentencing.

__________________

Docket: 07-1239
Case name: Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.
Issue: Whether courts below properly enjoined the Navy's use of sonar during certain training exercises for failure to conduct an environmental impact statement over a finding of "emergency circumstance" by the Council on Environmental Quality.

__________________

Docket: 07-1421
Case name: Canon Latin America, Inc. v. Lantech (CR)
Issue: Whether a party to an international contract is entitled to a foreign anti-suit injunction to enforce a mandatory forum selection clause where the claims raised in the action to be enjoined are not identical to those pending before the enjoining court.

__________________

Docket: 07-8521
Case name: Harbison v. Bell
Issue: Whether the Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act of 2005 provides prisoners sentenced under state law the right to federally appointed and funded counsel to pursue clemency under state law, and whether a district court's denial of such a request may be appealed without a certificate of appealability.

__________________

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized