Relist Watch

John Elwood reviews today’s relisted cases.

Before clearing out of town for the summer recess, the Justices gathered for one final Conference today. Below are the relisted cases that they considered at that Conference. We’ll find out tomorrow at 9:30 whether any of these cases made the cut.

Thanks to Stephen Gilstrap for compiling this update. And thanks to the whole Relist Watch gang for all their hard work this Term – I don’t want to say it was thankless drudgery, because that would describe it perfectly. See you in the fall!

_________________________

14-997

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires Mississippi to exempt physicians at the State’s only abortion clinic from complying with a medically legitimate health and safety regulation that applies to physicians at all other outpatient surgical facilities; and (2) whether Mississippi House Bill 1390, which requires that abortion physicians have admitting privileges at a local hospital to handle complications that require emergency hospitalization, imposes an undue burden under Planned Parenthood v. Casey regardless of the geographical availability of abortion services in adjoining states in light of the equal protection principle articulated in Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada.

(relisted after the May 21, May 28, June 4, June 11, June 18, and June 25 Conferences)

14-848

Issue(s): Whether an appellate court violates the core principles of Strickland v. Washington when it conducts a post-hoc assessment of trial counsel’s performance based on scientific advances not available at the time of trial.

(relisted after the June 11, June 18, and June 25 Conferences)

14-510

Issue(s): Whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied this Court's decision in Holland v. Florida when it ruled – in direct conflict with a holding of the Federal Circuit on materially similar facts – that the Tribe did not face an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act.

(relisted after the June 25 Conference)

14-915
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief by the American Federation of Teachers and American Association of University Professors in support of the respondents in this case.

Issue(s): (1) Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.

(relisted after the June 25 Conference)

14-1132

Issue(s): Whether Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provides federal jurisdiction over state-law claims seeking to establish liability based on violations of the Act or its regulations or seeking to enforce duties created by the Act or its regulations.

(relisted after the June 25 Conference)

14-1143

Issue(s): (1) Whether, when viewing the facts from the perspective of an officer who fired his service rifle at a vehicle involved in a high-speed chase, the officer acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment when an officer in his situation would believe that the suspect posed a risk of serious harm to other officers or members of the public; and (2) whether the law clearly established that this use of potentially deadly force was unlawful when existing precedent did not address the use of force against a fleeing suspect who had explicitly threatened to shoot police officers.

(relisted after the June 25 Conference)

14-1175

Issue(s): (1) Whether Nevada may refuse to extend to sister States haled into Nevada courts the same immunities Nevada enjoys in those courts; and (2) whether Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into the courts of another State without its consent, should be overruled.

(relisted after the June 25 Conference)

Posted in: Cases in the Pipeline

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY