The Court will hear the case of Ashcroft, et al., v. Iqbal (07-1015), along with two other newly granted cases, in the next Term. The lawsuit does not challenge the actual roundup, but instead focuses on conditions in the federal prison facility in Brooklyn where many of the men were held. The Second Circuit allowed the lawsuit by a Pakistani Muslim who formerly lived on Long Island, Javaid Iqbal, to go forward, at least in pre-trial stages.  Iqbal has since pleaded guilty to charges of identity fraud, and has been deported to Pakistan.

In another case, the Court agreed to spell out the scope of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ duty to give a veteran full notice of the information that will be needed in order to weigh a benefits claim (Peake v. Sanders, 07-1209). The issue is the nature of the Department’s liability if it fails in that duty.

In the third granted case, Haywood v. Drown (07-10374), the Court will decide whether it is unconstitutional for a state to bar all private damages claims in state court against state prison employees, including claims under federal civil rights law.  At issue is a New York law that shunts all such damage claims into a state claims court, with the claim then allowed only against the state itself. The appeal contends this is a violation of the Supremacy Clause, because Congress intended private individuals to have a right to sue under Section 1983, in state as well as in federal courts.

The Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General for the federal government’s views on state authority to require railroad employees claiming damages from asbestos exposure to offer proof of medical condition before they may sue under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.  There is no deadline for the government response in Weldon v. Norfolk Southern Railway (07-1152). At issue is an Ohio law passed in 2004.

The Court issued two decisions on the merits Monday. In the first, it ruled 7-2 that financially failed companies cannot use a provision of federal bankruptcy law to avoid paying a Florida state stamp tax on transfers — such as on real estate or securities transactions (Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, 07-312).  In the second case, the Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that an alien who seeks voluntary departure instead of deportation must be given some added time to withdraw that request (Dada v. Mukasey, 06-1181).

The Court will have more decisions on the merits on Thursday.  Fifteen decisions remain.

Among the cases denied review on Monday, the Justices turned aside the first Guantanamo Bay detainee’s case since its ruling last Thursday providing a constitutional right by the captives to challenge their continuing confinement. The Justices, without comment, turned aside a plea by a Syrian national, Abdul Rahim Abdul Razak Al Ginco, to order lower courts to reach a decision on his challenges to detention. The Justice Department had not responded to the mandamus request. The case was In re Al Ginco (07-10553). 

Here are issues in some of the other cases that were turned aside Monday:

** A claim to a right to file an immediate appeal when a federal judge refuses a federal government request to dismiss a case against a foreign government. The case is Exxon Mobil v. Doe (07-81), involving a claim that Exxon used soldiers of the Indonesian military to guard its plant in that country, and those soldiers engaged in atrocities toward villagers.  The Justice Department, asked by the Court for its views, urged that review be denied.  Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., who owns Exxon Mobil stock, did not take part in Monday’s denial order.

** Whether a Labor Department regulations bars workers from privately settling with their employes ther claims under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, unless the release gets government or court approval. This is another case in which the Solicitor General, asked for the government’s take on the case, urged a denial. Progress Energy v. Taylor (07-539).

** Whether it is unconstitutional for a state — here, Illinois — to ban the production of a food item, if all of the product is exported to other countries. The case of Cavel International v. Madigan (07-962), involving an Illinois law that makes it illegal to slaughter horses for human consumption.

** A plea, in another Illinois case, to spell out the kind of evidence of child abuse or neglect that must be produced by state officials before they threaten to separate parents and children while an investigation goes forward. (Dupuy v. Madigan, 07-1075).

** Whether parents of a disabled child, who has a right to a public education suited to the handicap, have a right to sue for money damages. (Burke v. Brookline School District, 07-1175).

In association with Bloomberg Law

The latest edition of "Petitions to Watch" features cases up for consideration at the Justices' private conference of June 12. As always, the list reflects the petitions on the Court's paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, including the lists for the upcoming conferences of May 29 and June 5, visit our archives here on SCOTUSwiki.

Conference of June 12, 2008

__________________

Docket: 07-81
Name: Exxon Mobil v. Doe
Issue: Whether the collateral order doctrine permits an immediate appeal of a denial of a motion to dismiss on political question grounds, where the State Department has expressed concern the litigation could adversely impact U.S. interests abroad.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply
• Brief amicus curiae of the United States (recommending denial of certiorari)

__________________

Docket: 07-539
Case name: Progress Energy, Inc. v. Taylor
Issue: Whether Department of Labor regulations preclude employees from waiving past claims, as opposed to future claims, under the Family Medical Leave Act. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner.)

• Opinion below (4th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply
• Amicus brief of the Chamber of Commerce (in support of the petitioner)
• Amicus brief of the Equal Employment Advisory Council (in support of the petitioner)
• Amicus brief of the North Carolina Retail Merchants Association (in support of the petitioner)
• Amicus brief of the Society for Human Resource Management (in support of the petitioner)
• Amicus brief of the Association of Corporate Counsel (in support of the petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of the United States (recommending denial of certiorari)
• Supplemental brief for the petitioner

__________________

Docket: 07-962
Case name: Cavel International, Inc. v. Madigan
Issue: Whether an Illinois law barring the possession, sale, importation or exportation of horse meat for human consumption violates the foreign commerce clause.

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply
• Brief amicus curiae of Kingdom of Belgium (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of Livestock Marketing Association (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of The American Quarter Horse Association (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-984 and 07-990
Case name: Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al. and Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al.
Issue: Whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may not issue a permit for discharge of fill material otherwise subject to effluent limitations under Sections 301 or 306 of the Clean Water Act.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (Coeur)
• Petition for certiorari (Alaska)
• Brief of respondent Goldbelt, Inc. in support
• Brief of federal respondents in opposition
• Brief of respondent Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al. in opposition
• Petitioner's reply (Coeur)
• Petitioner's reply (Alaska)
• Brief amici curiae of National Mining Association, et al. (in support of the petition)
• Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation (in support of the petition)
• Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. (in support of the petition)

__________________

Docket: 07-1015 and 07-1150
Case name: Ashcroft v. Iqbal, et al. and Sawyer, et al. v. Iqbal
Issue: Whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, are entitled to qualified immunity against allegations they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

• Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (Federal government)
• Petition for certiorari (Sawyer, former Bureau of Prisons officials)
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply (Ashcroft)
• Petitioner's reply (Sawyer)
• Brief amici curiae of former Attorney General William P. Barr, et al. (in support of the petition)

__________________

Docket: 07-1075
Case name: Dupuy, et al. v. McEwen
Issue: Whether the "safety plans" followed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services upon receiving allegations of child abuse violate parents' Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment.

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of Illinois State Bar Association (in support of the petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of American Coalition for Fathers and Children, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Psychoanalytic Association, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-1082
Case name: Baker v. Chisom
Issue: Whether, under 42 USC 1983, a complaint not naming the capacity in which a defendant is sued must be construed to name him in his official capacity, notwithstanding the course of proceedings establishing a contrary intent. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner)

• Opinion below (8th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-1175
Case name: Burke, et al. v. Brookline School District
Issue: Whether parents of a child identified as disabled under the IDEA can recover compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Rehabilitation Act for alleged retaliation.

• Opinion below (1st Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 07-1209
Case name: Peake v. Sanders
Issue: Whether courts must presume the failure of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to give notice to benefits' claimants to be prejudicial.

• Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition (respondent Woodrow F. Sanders)
• Brief in opposition (respondent Patricia D. Simmons)
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-1315
Case name: Knowles v. Mirzayance
Issue: Whether the defendant's lawyer's recommendation to withdraw an insanity plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel for purposes of federal habeas law.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

In association with Bloomberg Law