Petitions to watch | Conference of April 25
At its Conference on April 25, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the vesting of retiree health-care benefits in collective bargaining agreements, the liability of police officers who failed to stop a sexual assault, and certification of a civil RICO class action based on alleged fraud.
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 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, when construing collective bargaining agreements in Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, courts should presume that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits means the parties intended those benefits to vest (and therefore continue indefinitely), as the Sixth Circuit holds; or should require a clear statement that health-care benefits are intended to survive the termination of the collective bargaining agreement, as the Third Circuit holds; or should require at least some language in the agreement that can reasonably support an interpretation that health-care benefits should continue indefinitely, as the Second and Seventh Circuits hold.
Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that respondents, in seeking to prove their claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), could invoke the presumption of class-wide reliance approved by this Court for securities claims in Basic Inc. v. Levinson; (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that a fiduciary of a company’s employee-retirement plan must act -- with respect to publicly-traded securities -- on non-public information about the company in order to avoid liability under ERISA; and (3) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the “presumption of prudence,” which protects ERISA fiduciaries from liability in certain circumstances, applies only if the relevant retirement-plan language requires or encourages a fiduciary to invest in the employer’s own stock.
Issue: Whether, pursuant to Section 1635(f) of Title 15 of the U.S. Code, a borrower seeking to rescind a mortgage loan based upon Truth in Lending Act violations must bring suit within three years of loan consummation; and (2) if so, whether such a restrictive interpretation of Section 1635(f) of Title 15 should be limited to prospective application only as a new rule, since most borrowers and their attorneys otherwise relied to their detriment upon a contrary interpretation of the relevant language contained in this Court's 1998 decision in Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank.
Issue: (1) Whether contract-expectation damages are a permissible remedy in a civil RICO action based on alleged fraud, and if so, whether such damages are available even where any expectation was created only by the alleged fraudulent conduct; (2) whether but-for causation in a civil RICO class action may be satisfied by a class-wide presumption of reliance on alleged fraudulent conduct in the absence of any individualized proof that any member of the class actually relied on that conduct; and (3) whether a nationwide class asserting state-law claims under multiple state laws may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the absence of any showing that the state laws at issue are uniformly interpreted and applied.
Issue: (1) Whether a victim raped by a police officer acting under color of law can bring a Section 1983 substantive due process claim against state and local law enforcement officers and officials who, in the course of their investigation of her attacker, made the deliberate decision to build their prosecution case by allowing the victim to be repeatedly assaulted; (2) whether, under the deliberate indifference standard, law enforcement officers and officials are excused for knowing and intentional violations of a victim's constitutional rights in the course of investigating a state actor if the violations were committed as part of a plan to secure a conviction; and (3) whether knowingly allowing a sexual assault by a state actor is justifiable by any governmental interest.
Issue: Whether the Ninth Circuit’s grant of habeas relief in this case violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Issue: Whether a document from a state or local government stating that an application has been denied, but providing no reasons whatsoever for the denial, can satisfy the Communications Act’s “in writing” requirement.
Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.
Issue: Whether, to exercise the right to rescind a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act, it is sufficient for a consumer to notify the creditor in writing within three years of obtaining the loan (as the Third and Fourth Circuits have held, and as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has concluded), or whether the consumer must also file suit within that three-year period (as the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held).
Issue: Whether a borrower exercises his right to rescind a transaction in satisfaction of the requirements of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635, by “notifying the creditor” in writing within three years of the consummation of the transaction, as the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or must instead file a lawsuit within three years of the consummation of the transaction, as the First, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held.
Issue: Whether courts deciding qualified immunity in Fourth Amendment cases should consider the factual reasonableness of the search or seizure when applying the second, “clearly established” prong of the test.
Issue: Whether, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), state court adjudications are per se unreasonable and not entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Recommended Citation: Maureen Johnston, Petitions to watch | Conference of April 25, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 23, 2014, 10:40 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-april-25/