In addition to its summary reversal in No. 11-1179, American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, the Court granted eleven petitions for certiorari today, two of which were consolidated. Details are below the jump. The full order list is here.

Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (Granted )

Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondent in this case.
Docket: 11-338
Issue(s): (1) Whether a citizen may bypass judicial review of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting rule under 33 U.S.C. § 1369, and may instead challenge the validity of the rule in a citizen suit to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA); and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that stormwater from logging roads is industrial stormwater under the rules of the CWA and the Environmental Protection Agency, even though EPA has determined that it is not industrial stormwater? (Breyer, J. recused)

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (Granted )

Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondent in this case.
Docket: 11-347
Issue(s): Whether the Ninth Circuit should have deferred to the Environmental Protection Agency’s longstanding position that channeled runoff from forest roads does not require a permit, and erred when it mandated that EPA regulate such runoff as industrial stormwater subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Breyer, J., recused.)

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council (Granted )

Docket: 11-460
Issue(s): When water flows from one portion of a river that is navigable water of the United States, through a concrete channel or other engineered improvement in the river constructed for flood and stormwater control as part of a municipal separate storm sewer system, into a lower portion of the same river, whether there can be a “discharge” from an “outfall” under the Clean Water Act, notwithstanding this Court’s holding in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, that transfer of water within a single body of water cannot constitute a “discharge” for purposes of the Act. (limited to question 2)

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Vance v. Ball State University (Granted )

Docket: 11-556
Issue(s): Whether the “supervisor” liability rule established by Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Comcast v. Behrend (Granted )

Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.
Docket: 11-864
Issue(s): Whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.

Certiorari stage documents:

Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. (Granted )

Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondent in this case.
Docket: 11-982
Issue(s): Whether a federal district court is divested of Article III jurisdiction over a party’s challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark if the registrant promises not to assert its mark against the party’s then-existing commercial activities.

Certiorari stage documents:

Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk (Granted )

Docket: 11-1059
Issue(s): A case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims.

Certiorari stage documents:

Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. (Granted )

Docket: 11-1160
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Georgia legislature, by vesting a local government entity with general corporate powers to acquire and lease out hospitals and other property, has “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” a “state policy to displace competition” in the market for hospital services, thus rendering federal antitrust laws inapplicable under the “state action doctrine”; and (2) whether such a state policy, even if clearly articulated, would be sufficient to validate the anticompetitive conduct in this case, given that the local government entity -- which acquired the only competitor of a private actor at the private actor’s behest -- neither actively participated in negotiating the terms of the hospital sale nor has any practical means of overseeing the hospital’s operation.

Certiorari stage documents:

Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center (Granted )

Docket: 11-1231
Issue(s): Whether the 180-day statutory time limit for filing an appeal with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board from a final Medicaid payment determination made by a fiscal intermediary, 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(3), is subject to equitable tolling.

Certiorari stage documents:

U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen (Granted )

Docket: 11-1285
Issue(s): Whether the Third Circuit correctly held -- in conflict with the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits -- that Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) authorizes courts to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language and refuse to order participants to reimburse their plan for benefits paid, even where the plan’s terms give it an absolute right to full reimbursement.

Certiorari stage documents:

Henderson v. U.S. (Granted )

Docket: 11-9307
Issue(s): Whether, when the governing law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled in the defendant’s favor by the time of appeal, an appellate court reviewing for “plain error” should apply Johnson v. United States’s time-of-appeal standard, as the First, Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits do, or should apply the Ninth Circuit’s time-of-trial standard, which the D.C. Circuit and the panel below have adopted.

Certiorari stage documents:

Posted in Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Kali Borkoski, Details on today’s grants, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 25, 2012, 12:47 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/details-on-todays-grants-5/