In its “Long Conference” of September 28, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as whether state law may nullify the federal “patient safety work product” privilege; whether an officer who fired his service rifle at a vehicle involved in a high-speed chase acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment; and whether legislation that provides for the reopening of the final order of a federal bankruptcy court (and permits a private arbitrator to reverse it) is unconstitutional.
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(s): (1) Whether the court below erred in failing to make the required finding that race rather than politics predominated in District 3, where there is no dispute that politics explains the Enacted Plan; (2) whether the court below erred in relieving plaintiffs of their burden to show an alternative plan that achieves the General Assembly's political goals, is comparably consistent with traditional districting principles, and brings about greater racial balance than the Enacted Plan; (3) whether, regardless of any other error, the finding of a Shaw violation by the court below was based on clearly erroneous fact-finding; (4) whether the majority erred in holding that the Enacted Plan fails strict scrutiny because it increased District 3's black voting-age population percentage above the benchmark percentage, when the undisputed evidence establishes that the increase better complies with neutral principles than would reducing the percentage and no racial bloc voting analysis would support a reduction capable of realistically securing Section 5 preclearance.
Issue(s): Whether, in a case seeking judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' or an immigration judge's disposition of an application for cancellation of removal, a court of appeals has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review mixed questions of law and fact.
Issue(s): Whether California's arbitration-only severability rule is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
Issue(s): Whether, by reopening the final order of a federal bankruptcy court and permitting a private arbitrator to reverse it, Section 747 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 is unconstitutional.
Issue(s): Whether state law may nullify the federal “patient safety work product” privilege, or whether, instead, the Kentucky Supreme Court erred by interpreting it not to protect information “normally contained in” documents subject to state reporting or recordkeeping requirements. CVSG: 05/24/2016.
Issue(s): Whether, under the All Writs Act and the Anti-Injunction Act, a district court's injunction to enjoin parallel state litigation pending final approval of a comprehensive settlement of a complex case can ever be “necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.”
Issue(s): (1) Whether, as the United States implicitly conceded below, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) exercises sufficient federal power to mandate separation-of-powers scrutiny for purposes of a suit seeking injunctive relief and invoking the Little Tucker Act to seek monetary relief; and (2) whether the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. §§ 49101 et seq., which transferred to MWAA all of the federal government's “rights, liabilities, and obligations” concerning, inter alia, Dulles Airport and its “access highways and other related facilities,” violates the separation of powers, including the Executive Vesting, Appointments, and Take Care Clauses of Article II, by depriving the president of control over MWAA, an entity exercising – as the United States admits – executive branch functions pursuant to federal law. CVSG: 05/22/2015.
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.
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.