In its “Long Conference” of September 28, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as whether briefly retaining a citizen’s ID to check its validity and for warrants transforms an otherwise lawful encounter into an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment; whether Louisiana’s per se ban on the introduction of eyewitness identification expert testimony violates the U.S. Constitution; and whether a grant or conveyance of an exclusive patent license must be in writing.

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.

15-66

Issue(s): (1) Whether, as the Third Circuit held below and the Sixth Circuit also has ruled, Section 1054(g) of the Employee Retirement and Security Act's prohibition on a plan “amendment” can include an administrator's interpretation of the terms of a legitimate plan provision - or whether, as the D.C., Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have held, a plan “amendment” under Section 1054(g) refers only to changes an employer makes to plan language; and (2) whether the administrator's new interpretation of the plan was reasonable, subject to deference under Conkright v. Frommert, and not grounds for a claim under either Section 1054(g) or Section 1132(a)(1)(B) that it denied participants benefits due under the terms of the plan.

15-50

Issue(s): Whether Louisiana's per se ban on the introduction of eyewitness identification expert testimony violates the Due Process, Confrontation, and Compulsory Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

15-41

Issue(s): Whether 35 U.S.C. § 261 requires that a grant or conveyance of an exclusive patent license be in writing.

14-1516

Issue(s): Whether the Seventh Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a long line of this Court's decisions by awarding habeas relief in the absence of clearly established precedent from this Court.

 

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: John Ehrett, Petitions to watch | Conference of September 28, Part II, SCOTUSblog (Sep. 24, 2015, 3:30 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/09/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-september-28-part-ii/