In its Conference of March 25, 2016, the Court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits a district court to retract its “judgment of acquittal” entered on remand as an interpretation of the court of appeals’ mandate; 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.

15-537
Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.

Issue: Whether, under Ashe v. Swenson and Yeager v. United States, a vacated, unconstitutional conviction can cancel out the preclusive effect of an acquittal under the collateral estoppel prong of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

15-623

Issue: (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.

15-684

Issue: (1) Whether the phrase “applicable implementation plan” in 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(3)(E)(ii) (a provision of the Clean Air Act) refers to a nonattainment plan and requires a state seeking attainment status to continue implementing all EPA nonattainment-plan mandates; and (2) whether the nonattainment-plan statute’s mandate to use “reasonably available control measures” in section 7502(c)(1) compels states to impose measures unnecessary to meet the relevant air-quality standards.

15-723

Issue: 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.

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: John Ehrett, Petitions to watch | Conference of March 25, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 21, 2016, 11:00 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-march-25/