At its June 28, 2012 Conference (the last of the Term), the Court will consider petitions on which it did not act in last week’s Conference, as well as petitions that were being held until the Court issued decisions on the merits in cases presenting similar questions.  Among the issues that the Court will consider are standing to seek a tax refund on equal protection grounds, a challenge to the scarcity doctrine of  Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, and whether the Confrontation Clause prohibits testimony when the jury is likely to infer the substance of an out-of-court testimonial statement.

This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues.

Corboy v. Louie

Docket: 11-336
Issue(s): (1) Whether petitioners have standing to seek a refund of their own taxes; and (2) whether the Equal Protection Clause precludes a state or municipality from creating tax exemptions that are available only to members of a certain race.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Warner v. Ocampo

Docket: 11-614
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit contravened the directives of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) when it concluded that testimony describing an interview, but not admitting an actual statement, violates the Confrontation Clause whenever the substance of an out-of-court testimonial statement is likely to be inferred by the jury; and (2) whether, when this Court has not clearly established whether the Confrontation Clause prohibits testimony describing a police interview without offering out-of-court statements, the Ninth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by determining the state court adjudication of the confrontation claim was objectively unreasonable.

Certiorari stage documents:

Media General Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

Docket: 11-691
Issue(s): Whether this Court should reconsider its decision in FCC v. National Citizen Committee for Broadcasting, that broadcast ownership restrictions are subject only to rational basis review.

Certiorari stage documents:

Tribune Company v. Federal Communications Commission

Docket: 11-696
Issue(s): (1) Whether the scarcity doctrine of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC , should be overruled, thereby invalidating the Federal Communications Commission’s media ownership rules; and (2) whether the FCC’s continued restriction on the cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations in the same market violates the First and Fifth Amendments because it singles out newspapers among all forms of mass communication for unequal treatment.

Certiorari stage documents:

National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission

Docket: 11-698
Issue(s): Whether the Third Circuit correctly upheld and retained future jurisdiction over media broadcast ownership rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, where the D.C. Circuit previously held that the very local television ownership rule approved by the Third Circuit was arbitrary and capricious and not necessary in the public interest.

Certiorari stage documents:

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.

Docket: 11-1154
Issue(s): (1) Whether a court may depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of a term in a patent claim based on language in the patent specification, where the patentee has neither expressly disavowed the plain meaning of the claim term nor expressly defined the term in a way that differs from its plain meaning; and (2) whether claim construction, including underlying factual issues that are integral to claim construction, is a purely legal question subject to de novo review on appeal.

Certiorari stage documents:

Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.

Docket: 11-1278
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Federal Circuit’s construction of the “lodging” limitation should be reversed because, at the urging of Retractable Technologies, Inc. (RTI), the Federal Circuit deviated from the term’s clear meaning on far weaker grounds than the court relied on to construe the ambiguous term “body”; (2) whether the Federal Circuit’s construction of the “retainer member” limitation should be reversed because, at RTI’s urging, the Federal Circuit deviated from the term’s clear meaning on far weaker grounds than the court relied on to construe the ambiguous term “body”; and (3) whether the Federal Circuit’s holding that the asserted claims cover devices that work by cutting should be reversed because, at RTI’s urging, the Federal Circuit disregarded a clear disclaimer of claim scope on far weaker grounds than the court relied on to construe the ambiguous term “body.”

Certiorari stage documents:

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Matthew Bush, Petitions to watch | Conference of June 28, 2012, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 27, 2012, 10:40 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-june-28-2012/