The “Notable Petitions” feature lists petitions that likely will later appear on our “Petitions to Watch” list when they are ready for consideration by the Justices. “Notable Petitions” are those that Tom has identified as raising one or more questions that has a reasonable chance of being granted in an appropriate case. We generally do not attempt to evaluate whether the case presents an appropriate vehicle to decide the question, which is a critical consideration in determining whether certiorari will be granted.
The newest notable petitions, along with the opinions below and any other briefs filed at the Court so far, follow the jump.
Title: Rosillo-Puga v. Holder; Mendiola v. Holder
Docket: 09-1367; 09-1378
Issues: Whether the regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) is invalid under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 because it denies immigrants who have departed the United States their statutory right to file a motion to reopen or reconsider an order of removability; and (2) whether the Tenth Circuit may deprive the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals of discretionary authority to sua sponte reconsider or reopen removal proceedings by denying a petition for review based on reasons not articulated in either the judge's or BIA's orders denying the motion in the first instance.
- Opinions below (10th Circuit): 1367; 1378
- Petition for certiorari (1367)
- Petition for certiorari (1378)
Title: Bell v. Thompson
Issues: (1) Whether respondent Gregory Thompson is competent to be executed, given that Ford v. Wainwright (1986) neither defined competency in the Eighth Amendment context nor set forth precise procedural requirements for determining competency for execution; (2) whether the Tennessee Supreme Court's clarification of existing Tennessee appellate procedure was sufficient to warrant relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) from the district court's judgment denying respondent Thompson's petition for writ of habeas corpus; and (3) whether the Sixth Circuit's decision exceeds the scope of the certificate of appealability (COA) — and thus the Court's jurisdiction — under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Title: Sternberg v. Johnston
Issue: Whether 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) – specifying that an individual "injured" by a willful violation of the Bankruptcy Code automatic stay "shall recover actual damages" — encompasses compensation for emotional distress.