At its September 30, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preemption of state-law claims, whether the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the scope of the extraterritorial branch of dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, and accommodations for pregnant employees under Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

This is our second of three installments of “Petitions to watch” for the September 30 Conference (the first installment is here). We feature 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 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, P.C. represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.

12-1447

Issue: Whether property alleged to have been fraudulently transferred from a debtor is subject to the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. §362(a) before the Trustee completes his fraudulent transfer adversary proceeding and recovers the fraudulently transferred property, and whether such property is “property of the estate” as defined in 11 U.S.C. §541(a).

 

12-1408

Issue: Whether severance payments made to employees whose employment was involuntarily terminated are taxable under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, 26 U.S.C. 3101 et seq. (Kagan, J., recused)

 

12-1351

Issue: Whether the Medical Device Amendments to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempt a state-law claim alleging that a medical device manufacturer violated a duty under federal law to report adverse-event information to the Food and Drug Administration.

 

12-1349

Issue: Whether Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint under the False Claims Act “allege with particularity that specific false claims actually were presented to the government for payment,” as required by the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, or whether it is instead sufficient to allege the “particular details of” the “scheme to submit false claims” together with sufficient indicia that false claims were submitted, as held by the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

 

12-1341
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in this case, which is listed without regard to the likelihood that it will be granted.

Issue: Whether, when a court finds that a trademark plaintiff’s inexcusable delay in enforcing its rights and the resulting undue prejudice to the defendant amount to laches and acquiescence, the plaintiff is nonetheless entitled to permanent injunctive relief on the identical claim.

 

12-1272

Issue: Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

 

12-1269

Issue: Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

 

12-1268

Issue: Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

 

12-1254

Issue: Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

 

12-1253

Issue: Whether the Clean Air Act and this Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from considering whether regulations addressing greenhouse gases under Section 202 of the Act would meaningfully mitigate the risks identified as the basis for their adoption.

 

12-1248

Issue: Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

 

12-1230

Issue: Whether a defendant that did not sign a contract containing an arbitration clause can compel arbitration of the arbitrability of a plaintiff’s claims.

 

12-1226

Issue: Whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), requires an employer that provides work accommodations to nonpregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.”

 

12-1224

Issue: (1) Whether the extraterritorial branch of the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine should be limited to the price-affirmation and anti-takeover contexts, or abolished entirely as a stand-alone test; and (2) whether the extraterritorial branch of the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine extends to a nondiscriminatory statute that is focused on in-state activity in order to prevent fraud occurring in the enacting state.

 

12-1221

Issue: (1) Whether the extraterritorial branch of the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine should be limited to the price-affirmation and anti-takeover contexts; (2) whether the extraterritorial doctrine should be abolished entirely; and (3) whether a state statute's extraterritorial effect should result in the law’s per se invalidity.

 

12-1185

Issue: Whether, in light of the plain meaning of “threat” and the constitutional rule of Virginia v. Black, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for “transmit[ing] in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing . . . any threat to injure the person of another” requires proof of a subjective or specific intent to threaten.

 

12-1153

Issue: Whether the EPA's regulation determining that carbon dioxide and related substances pose a danger to human health and welfare must be set aside because the EPA violated the congressional mandate to submit the proposed endangerment finding to the Science Advisory Board for peer review, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 4365(c)(1).

 

12-1152

Issue: (1) Whether Virginia and other petitioners below demonstrated that there was evidence of central relevance to the EPA’s Endangerment Finding not available during the comment period such that the Administrator was obligated to convene a proceeding for reconsideration with procedural rights of notice and comment; (2) whether the EPA correctly applied the standard for demonstrating central relevance; (3) whether the EPA erred when it found the objections material enough to require resort to extensive new evidence outside of the record while denying the rights of notice and comment on that evidence; and (4) whether the EPA erred initially and on Petition for Reconsideration by delegating its Statutory Authority to outside entities.

 

12-1146

Issue: Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Mary Pat Dwyer, Petitions to watch | Conference of September 30 (Part 2), SCOTUSblog (Sep. 3, 2013, 12:01 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/09/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-september-30-part-2/