At its Conference on April 4, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as vacating arbitral awards for manifest disregard of law, a state’s waiver of harmless error issue in habeas proceedings, and the validity of a traffic stop based on the officer’s mistake of law.

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.

13-912

Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit contravened 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) when it granted habeas relief even though there is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent which holds that in respondent’s case the state violated the Sixth Amendment; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit improperly disregarded its obligation under Fry v. Pliler and Brecht v. Abrahamson to review the state court decision for harmless error when it applied a Ninth Circuit direct-review standard to determine that it would not reach the issue of harmless error because the state had waived it.

13-722
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys 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 and when the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to vacate an arbitral award as the product of “manifest disregard of the law.”

13-604
Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in this case at the cert. stage through the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, but he is not participating in the case at the merits stage.

Issue: Whether a police officer’s mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop.

Relists

13-892
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in this case, which is listed without regard to its likelihood of being granted.

Issue: Whether and to what extent the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment entitles a condemned inmate to timely notice of the method by which he will be executed.

13-719

Issue: Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or whether it is enough to allege the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.”

13-638

Issue: (1) Whether the court of appeals failed to apply the governing preponderance of the evidence standard in affirming the denial of petitioner's habeas corpus petition, thus denying him the meaningful review mandated by Boumediene v. Bush; and (2) whether the court of appeals improperly shifted the burden of proof to petitioner to disprove affiliation with al Qaeda or the Taliban at the time of his capture.

13-628

Issue: Whether a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport is unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the President's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him."

13-585

Issue: Whether applying a state public-accommodations statute to require a photographer to create expressive images and picture books conveying messages that conflict with her religious beliefs violates the First Amendment’s ban on compelled speech.

13-551

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.

12-1472

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.

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Maureen Johnston, Petitions to watch | Conference of April 4, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 1, 2014, 11:31 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-april-4/