This morning the Court granted certiorari in eight new cases, two of which have in turn been consolidated for one hour of oral argument. The full order list is available here. On Monday, we expect the Court to issue an additional order list reflecting the cases from the September 26 Conference in which certiorari has been denied or in which the Court has invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States; at that point, we will also be able to infer which cases from the September 26 Conference will be relisted for consideration at the Court's October 7 Conference.

The Court granted certiorari in the following eight cases:

Filarsky v. Delia (Granted )

Docket: 10-1018
Issue(s): Whether a lawyer retained to work with government employees in conducting an internal affairs investigation is precluded from asserting qualified immunity solely because of his status as a private lawyer rather than a government employee.

Certiorari stage documents:

Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. (Granted )

Docket: 10-1472
Issue(s): Whether costs incurred in translating written documents are compensation of interpreters and may therefore be awarded to the prevailing party in a federal lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6).

Certiorari stage documents:

Holder v. Gutierrez (Granted )

Docket: 10-1542
Issue(s): (1) Whether a parent's years of lawful permanent resident status can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(1)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years; and (2) whether a parent's years of residence after lawful admission to the United States can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status.

Certiorari stage documents:

Holder v. Sawyers (Granted )

Docket: 10-1543
Issue(s): Whether a parent's years of residence after lawful admission to the United States can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have "resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status."

Certiorari stage documents:

United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC (Granted )

Docket: 11-139
Issue(s): (1) Whether an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis in sold property is an omi[ssion] from gross income that can trigger the extended six-year assessment period; and (2) whether a final regulation promulgated by the Department of the Treasury, which reflects the IRS's view that an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis can trigger the extended six-year assessment period, is entitled to judicial deference.

Certiorari stage documents:

 

Wood v. Milyard (No. 10-9995): The question presented is limited to the following(1) Whether an appellate court has the authority to raise sua sponte a 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) statute of limitations defense; (2) whether the state's declaration before the district court that it "will not challenge, but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of Wood's habeas petition," amount to a deliberate waiver of any statute of limitations defense the state may have had?

Roberts v. Sea-Land Services (No. 10-1399): The question presented is limited to: Whether the phrase "those newly awarded compensation during such period" in Longshore Act § 6(c), applicable to all classes of disability except permanent total, can be read to mean "those first entitled to compensation during such period," regardless of when it is awarded.

Vartelas v. Holder (No. 1211): The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), which removes a legal permanent resident of his right, under Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449(1963), to make "innocent, casual, and brief" trips abroad without fear that he will be denied reentry, applies  retroactively to a guilty plea taken prior to the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

 

 

Posted in Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Kali Borkoski, Details on today’s grants, SCOTUSblog (Sep. 27, 2011, 10:24 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/09/details-on-todays-grants/