Petitions to watch | Conference of May 30, 2013
At its May 30, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the constitutionality of restrictions on “gruesome” imagery in a public forum, a ban on an individual’s access to a public roadway through a military installation, a self-defense claim by a member of the armed forces in a combat zone, and the predominance requirement for class certification.
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 the Ninth Circuit created an improper and unworkable rule by inventing a duty for district courts to sua sponte impose a blanket protective order – absent any request from the privilege holder – at the commencement of any discovery in habeas proceedings in which the habeas petitioner asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issue(s): (1) Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement for class action certification can be satisfied based solely on a determination that it would be “efficient” to decide a single common question at trial, without considering any of the individual issues that would also need to be tried, and without determining whether the aggregate of common issues predominates over the aggregate of individual issues; and (2) whether a class may be certified on breach of warranty claims where it is undisputed that most members did not experience the alleged product defect and where fact of injury would have to be litigated on a member-by-member basis.
Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1382, which prohibits a person from reentering a military installation after a commanding officer has ordered him not to reenter, may be enforced on a portion of a military installation that is subject to a public roadway easement.
Issue(s): Whether the appropriate analytic framework for determining a party’s standing to maintain an action for false advertising under the Lanham Act is (1) the factors set forth in Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters as adopted by the Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits; (2) the categorical test, permitting suits only by an actual competitor, employed by the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits; or (3) a version of the more expansive “reasonable interest” test, either as applied by the Sixth Circuit in this case or as applied by the Second Circuit in prior cases.
Issue(s): Whether a servicemember in a combat zone categorically forfeits the right to self-defense as a matter of law by pointing a firearm without authorization at a suspected enemy.
Recommended Citation: Mary Pat Dwyer, Petitions to watch | Conference of May 30, 2013, SCOTUSblog (May. 23, 2013, 1:30 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-may-30-2013/