At its June 6, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the constitutionality of a state law protecting union picketing on private property, restitution for child pornography victims, the constitutional relevance of a defendant’s knowledge of an ordinance prohibiting “wholly passive conduct,” and patent infringement liability for joint performance of a process patent .

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(s): Whether California’s Moscone Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.3, and Section 1138.1 of the California Labor Code violate the U.S. Constitution by forcing property owners to open private property to the expressive activities of others based on the content of their speech.



Issue(s): (1) Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it created a split of authority amongst the lower courts by rejecting the universally-recognized limitations on the scope of this Court’s decision in Lamber v. California, which held that a defendant’s knowledge of an ordinance is constitutionally irrelevant except in a narrow class of convictions where the ordinance involves conduct that is “wholly passive” and conditions do not lead one to inquire about the existence of a regulation; and (2) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision holding that due process requires a statute to provide a means of individual notice conflicts with this Court’s holding in Texaco v. Short, which held in pertinent part that the notice requirement of due process only requires the legislature to enact the law, publish the law, and provide a period of time for people to become familiar with the law.



Issue(s): Whether a party may be liable for infringement under either section of the patent infringement statute, 35 U.S.C. §271(a) or § 271(b), where two or more entities join together to perform all of the steps of a process claim.



Issue(s): Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under Section 271(a).



Issue(s): Whether, when the Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2259, provides that a court “shall order restitution” for a victim of child pornography “in the full amount of the victim’s losses,” which are defined to include several specified categories as well as “any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate cause of the offense,” a defendant is excused from paying restitution for the itemized loss categories unless there is proof that the victim’s losses were the proximate result of an individual defendant’s child pornography crime.


Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in this case.

Issue(s): Whether, in disputes involving a multi-staged dispute resolution process, a court or the arbitrator determines whether a precondition to arbitration has been satisfied.



Issue(s): Whether a state law concerning traditional state responsibilities, such as extending the statute of limitations and providing forum access for insurance claims, can be invalidated under the foreign affairs doctrine in the absence of a conflict with federal policy or an indication of federal intent to preempt the field.


Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in Harris.

Issue(s): (1) Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, compel personal care providers to accept and financially support a private organization as their exclusive representative to petition the state for greater reimbursements from its Medicaid programs; and (2) whether the lower court erred in holding that the claims of providers in the Home Based Support Services Program are not ripe for judicial review.

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Mary Pat Dwyer, Petitions to watch | Conference of June 6, 2013, SCOTUSblog (May. 29, 2013, 10:59 PM),