Petitions to watch | Conference of February 22, 2013
At its February 22, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as administrative search warrants and the Fourth Amendment, selectively prohibiting defamation of the police, deference to state courts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and minimum contacts for establishing personal jurisdiction.
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. Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.
Issue: Whether the First Amendment allows a state to selectively criminalize defamation of the police, banning defamation expressing anti-police views while permitting knowing false statements expressing pro-police views.
Issue: (1) Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the issuance of general warrants to search occupied private dwellings, without individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, for the purpose of seeking evidence of zoning, housing code and other administrative violations that are punishable by fines and/or incarceration; (2) whether the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that warrants particularly describe the things to be seized applies to an administrative search warrant authorizing the search of an occupied private dwelling; and (3) whether a local law that authorizes the periodic issuance of general warrants against rented homes without any factual showing of wrongdoing, while requiring traditional probable cause and particularity to obtain a warrant against the home of a landowner, offends the Equal Protection Clause.
Issue: Whether, when the government denies an application for naturalization, it may then also deprive the applicant of the statutory right to district court review of the denial by seeking her removal.
Issue: Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in restricting “course of employment” for purposes of liability under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, to only those acts that are subjectively intended to, and objectively do, further the employer’s business interests.
Issue: Whether, when a criminal defendant affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, the state violates the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant.
Issue: (1) Whether the ban on campaign contributions by corporations in the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. §441b, violates the First Amendment; and (2) whether restrictions or bans on the right to make campaign contributions should be reviewed under strict scrutiny, as other restrictions on political expression are, or instead under a less protective standard.
Issue: (1) Whether due process permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose sole “contact” with the forum state is his knowledge that the plaintiff has connections to that state; and (2) whether the judicial district where the plaintiff suffered injury is a district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” for purposes of establishing venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) even if the defendant’s alleged acts and omissions all occurred in another district.
Issue: Whether the Ninth Circuit conflicted with the “reasonable likelihood” materiality standards of Napue v. Illinois and Brady v. Maryland by substituting a standard based on “any conceivable, speculative possibility” of a different result.
Issue: (1) Whether the Fourth Circuit created an impermissible end-run around Harrington v. Richter, Cullen v. Pinholster, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act by holding that a state court’s merits determination is not an “adjudication on the merits” whenever the state prisoner later presents the federal court with new material evidence and the state court decided the ineffective assistance claim without an evidentiary hearing and (2) whether the Fourth Circuit wrongly ignored 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and Strickland v. Washington in concluding as a de novo matter, and contrary to the Virginia Supreme Court and Strickland, that trial counsel were ineffective for deciding not to argue mental retardation at sentencing?
Issue: Whether a federal habeas court must grant Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) deference to both components of a state court’s merits adjudication of a defendant’s Strickland v. Washington claim, when the state court addressed only one of the components in denying relief.
Issue: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit failed to give appropriate deference to a Michigan state court under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for allowing respondent to maintain his claim of innocence; (2) whether a convicted defendant’s subjective testimony that he would have accepted a plea but for ineffective assistance, is, standing alone, sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable probability that defendant would have accepted the plea; and (3) whether Lafler v. Cooper always requires a state trial court to resentence a defendant who shows a reasonable probability that he would have accepted a plea offer but for ineffective assistance, and to do so in such a way as to “remedy” the violation of the defendant’s constitutional right.
Issue: Whether Faretta v. California "clearly establish[es]," for purposes of habeas corpus review of state-court judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), that a defendant retains a constitutional right to revoke his prior waiver of counsel at trial and require re-appointment of counsel to file a new-trial motion.
Issue: (1) Whether jury decisions that material is obscene – either obscene for all viewers or just for minors – should be reviewed using the independent appellate review mandated by Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. and Jenkins v. Georgia, as there is a split on this question among state courts of last resort and federal circuit courts; and (2) whether this Court should provide lower courts with a benchmark precedent about what material is “obscene as to minors” or “harmful to minors,” by deciding whether roughly drawn pictures, lacking in sexual content, sent by a father to his wife to be shown to his young child are properly viewed as “obscene as to minors.”
Recommended Citation: Mary Pat Dwyer, Petitions to watch | Conference of February 22, 2013, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 14, 2013, 10:30 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-february-22-2013/