Petitions to watch | Conference of April 1
In its Conference of April 1, 2016, the Court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether third-party home care employers can avail themselves of the “home care” exemptions to overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act; whether an occupational licensee who shields himself from regulatory questioning with the Fifth Amendment and suffers licensing consequences can successfully wield the Fifth Amendment as a sword in a Section 1983 action; and whether the Sixth Circuit failed to apply either layer of the double deference due on federal habeas review when a state court’s Strickland v. Washington analysis is reviewed through the lens of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Issue(s): Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state court from certifying a class action, and entering a monetary judgment in favor of the class, where the court permits the use of extrapolation to relieve individual class members of their burden of proof and forecloses the defendants from presenting individualized defenses to class members’ claims.
Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and award monetary relief to all class members, even though the class includes individuals who were not harmed by the challenged conduct and could not have prevailed in an individual action.
Issue(s): Whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Issue(s): (1) Whether Garrity v. New Jersey and its progeny require regulators either to obtain a formal grant of immunity from all potential prosecutorial agencies or to issue a prophylactic notice about Garrity immunity before the regulators may take licensing action against a licensee who invokes the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering regulatory-related questions; and (2) whether an occupational licensee who shields himself from regulatory questioning with the Fifth Amendment and suffers licensing consequences can successfully wield the Fifth Amendment as a sword in a § 1983 action, even though the licensee provided no incriminating statements to the regulators and faced no criminal proceedings.
Issue(s): (1) Whether this Court intended in Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke to allow the Department to deprive all third-party home care employers (who employ more than 90% of all home care employees) of their statutory right to avail themselves of exemptions to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act; (2) whether the D.C. Circuit erred in finding that Congress intended to exclude employees of third party employers from the home care exemptions, thereby conflicting with Coke’s contrary reading of Congressional intent and creating a conflict in the circuits; and (3) whether the Department’s new rule should be found to be unreasonable due to the agency’s failure to meaningfully address the relevant factors of unaffordability and lack of adequate state funding of the increased costs of home health care under the new rule.
Issue(s): (1) Whether this Court should reconsider and overrule the case Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, and its progeny, that allow for appeals of remand orders, in light of the express Congressional proscription of appeals of remands in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); and (2) whether district courts should be able to remand a statutorily defective removal despite facially apparent diversity jurisdiction where the removing party has abandoned any claim of diversity by engaging in state court litigation for more than half a year while diverse, and the record suggests that the removal was abusive, dilatory forum shopping.
Issue(s): Whether the Court of Appeals failed to apply either layer of the double deference due on federal habeas review when a state court’s Strickland v. Washington analysis is reviewed through the lens of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Recommended Citation: John Ehrett, Petitions to watch | Conference of April 1, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 29, 2016, 8:00 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-april-1/