At its Conference on June 19, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the enforceability of the EEOC’s duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit, the certification of a nationwide class action for employment discrimination based on gender, congressional power to prohibit states from authorizing sports wagering, and accommodations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

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.

13-1174
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 in what circumstances the dismissal of an action that has been consolidated with other suits is immediately appealable.

13-1143

Issue: (1) Whether a malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 exists under the Fourth Amendment against an investigating police detective; and (2) whether the Court’s holding in Wallace v. Kato applies to a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim under the Fourth Amendment not involving a conviction so that the applicable statute of limitations begins running when the claimant was detained pursuant to the arrest warrant.

13-1126

Issue: (1) Whether the circuit court’s ruling violated the Supremacy Clause by failing to enforce the unambiguous terms of a later-enacted statute under the last-in-time rule; (2) whether the Supremacy Clause supports a presumption that an Act of Congress should not be read to abrogate treaty provisions; and (3) whether the circuit court’s invocation of a plain statement rule in connection with a facially unambiguous statute violated the Supremacy Clause by elevating the terms of pre-existing executive agreements over conflicting and unambiguous provisions of a later-enacted statute.

13-1083

Issue: (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 656 is a crime “involving fraud or deceit” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of aggravated felony where the criminal statute does not contain either of these terms, but instead describes categorically a pure theft offense; and (2) whether, assuming that elements of an intent to defraud or to injure may be read into the statute, these are distinct mental states that render the statute divisible, such that 18 U.S.C. § 656 cannot categorically be classified as a fraud or deceit crime.

13-1057

Issue: Whether the court of appeals exceeded its authority to grant a writ of habeas corpus when it expanded Ring v. Arizona to create a Sixth Amendment right to jury findings of mitigation, and concluded that the jury’s failure to consider mitigating circumstances had a substantial and injurious effect on the sentence of death.

13-1032

Issue: Whether the Tax Injunction Act, which provides that “[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State,” bars federal court jurisdiction over a suit brought by non-taxpayers to enjoin the informational notice and reporting requirements of a state law that neither imposes a tax, nor requires the collection of a tax, but serves only as a secondary aspect of state tax administration.

13-1019
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 to what extent a court may enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.

13-980

Issue: Whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) violates the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment by prohibiting states from authorizing sports wagering under state law.

13-979

Issue: (1) Whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s (PASPA) prohibition on state licensing or authorization of sports wagering exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and violates both the Tenth Amendment and structural principles of federalism; and (2) Whether PASPA’s discrimination in favor of Nevada and other exempted states violates the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty.

13-967

Issue: (1) Whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s (“PASPA”) prohibition on state licensing or authorization of sports wagering commandeers the regulatory authority of the states, in violation of the Tenth Amendment; and (2) whether PASPA’s discrimination in favor of Nevada and other exempted states violates the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty.

13-899

Issue: (1) Whether the Fourth Circuit contravened Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes by holding that discretionary decisions by hundreds of supervisors can serve as the basis for a nationwide class action because "Wal-Mart is limited to the exercise of discretion by lower-level employees, as opposed to upper-level, top-management personnel"; and (2) whether a court of appeals may exercise "pendent appellate jurisdiction" to review an unappealable interlocutory ruling that requires the court to decide legal and factual issues distinct from the ruling over which it has jurisdiction and unrelated to the power of the district court to enter the appealable order.

Relists

13-1211

Issue: Whether the jury or the court determines whether use of an older trademark may be tacked to a newer one.

13-1080

Issue: Whether Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, which requires the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak to “jointly . . . develop” the metrics and standards for Amtrak’s performance that will be used in part to determine whether the Surface Transportation Board (STB) will investigate a freight railroad for failing to provide the preference for Amtrak’s passenger trains that is required by federal law, and provides for the STB to appoint an arbitrator if the FRA and Amtrak cannot agree on the metrics and standards within 180 days, effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a private entity.

13-1074

Issue: Whether the six-month time bar for filing suit in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling.

13-1075

Issue: Whether the two-year time limit for filing an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling.

13-935

Issue: (1) Whether the presence of a subsidiary state property law issue in a 11 U.S.C. § 541 action brought against a debtor to determine whether property in the debtor’s possession is property of the bankruptcy estate means that such action does not “stem[] from the bankruptcy itself” and therefore, that a bankruptcy court does not have the constitutional authority to enter a final order deciding that action; and (2) whether Article III permits the exercise of the judicial power of the United States by the bankruptcy courts on the basis of litigant consent, and if so, whether implied consent based on a litigant’s conduct is sufficient to satisfy Article III.

CVSG

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. CVSG: 10/07/2013.

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 non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.” CVSG: 10/07/2013.

Posted in Everything Else

Recommended Citation: Maureen Johnston, Petitions to watch | Conference of June 19, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 17, 2014, 10:15 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-june-19/