This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether a general choice-of-law clause in a contract that contains an arbitration agreement should be read to import state substantive law without importing state rules impairing arbitration, the effect of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s tailoring requirement for prospective relief, and the establishment of the element of loss causation in a securities-fraud case.

The petitions of the week are:

18-162
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.

Issue: Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s tailoring requirement – which provides that before a district court may order prospective relief with respect to prison conditions, it must find “that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) – prohibits a district court from ordering a prison to maintain a maximum heat index to remedy a constitutional violation caused by heat.

18-164

Issue: Whether a private securities-fraud plaintiff may establish the critical element of loss causation based on a decline in the market price of a security when the event or disclosure that triggered the decline did not reveal the fraud on which the plaintiff’s claim is based.

18-174

Issues: (1) Whether a general choice-of-law clause in a contract that contains an arbitration agreement should be read, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court’s decisions, to import state substantive law without importing state rules impairing arbitration, as 10 federal courts of appeals and nine state courts of appeals have held, or whether a general choice-of-law clause should be read to incorporate both state substantive law and state arbitration principles, including those barring or otherwise evincing hostility to arbitration, as four state courts of appeals and one federal court of appeals have held; and (2) whether a litigant may avoid the enforcement of a contractual clause delegating questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator merely by stating that the litigant’s objection to arbitration—which must ordinarily be resolved by the arbitrator—apply equally to the delegation clause itself.

18-175

Issues: (1) Whether a general choice-of-law clause in a contract that contains an arbitration agreement should be read, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court’s decisions, to import state substantive law without importing state rules impairing arbitration, as 10 federal courts of appeals and nine state courts of appeals have held, or whether a general choice-of-law clause should be read to incorporate both state substantive law and state arbitration principles, including those barring or otherwise evincing hostility to arbitration, as four state courts of appeals and one federal court of appeals have held; and (2) whether a litigant may avoid the enforcement of a contractual clause delegating questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator merely by stating that the litigant’s objection to arbitration—which must ordinarily be resolved by the arbitrator—apply equally to the delegation clause itself.

Posted in Ball v. LeBlanc, First Solar Inc. v. Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme, Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Citizens of Humanity, LLC, Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Citizens of Humanity, LLC, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Aurora Barnes, Petitions of the week, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 31, 2018, 12:05 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/08/petitions-of-the-week-7/