This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ next private conference on Tuesday, November 24. As always, it lists the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to all previous editions are available in our SCOTUSwiki archive.
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ next private conference on November 13. As always, it lists the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to all previous editions are available in our SCOTUSwiki archive.
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference tomorrow, November 6. As always, it lists the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to all previous editions are available in our SCOTUSwiki archive.
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference tomorrow, October 30. As always, it lists the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to all previous editions are available in our SCOTUSwiki archive.
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on October 19. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to previous editions are available in our SCOTUSwiki archive.
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on October 9. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to previous editions are available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki.
This is the fifth and final edition of “Petitions to Watch” featuring cases up for consideration at the Justices’ opening conference of September 29. Included in today’s post are cases in which the Solicitor General has filed invitation briefs or letters since the end of last Term. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to previous editions are available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki. [Note: There are a number of petitions in which the respondent is proceeding in forma pauperis and we don't yet have an electronic copy of the brief in opposition. If you are counsel in any of these cases or otherwise have a copy, I'd appreciate your emailing it to me.]
This is the fourth edition of “Petitions to Watch” featuring cases up for consideration at the Justices’ opening conference of September 29. We’ll have one final post tomorrow; included in today’s post are the Second Amendment incorporation petitions out of the Second and Seventh Circuits. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to previous editions are available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki.
This is the third edition of “Petitions to Watch” featuring cases up for consideration at the Justices’ opening conference of September 29. Because of the great number of petitions to be considered on the summer list, we’ll have multiple installations leading up to the “long conference.” As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to previous editions are also available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki.
Read the rest of this entry »
This is the second edition of “Petitions to Watch” featuring cases up for consideration at the Justices’ opening conference of September 29. Because of the great number of petitions to be considered on the summer list, we’ll have multiple installations leading up to the “long conference.” As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to previous editions are also available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki.
The first edition of “Petitions to Watch” for the October 2009 term features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ opening conference of September 29. Because of the great number of petitions to be considered, we’ll have multiple installations leading up to the “long conference.” As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to previous editions are also available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki.
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on June 25, the final conference of this Term. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. We’ve also listed the cases considered at this conference in which the Solicitor General was invited to file a brief. Links to previous editions are available under the “Petitions to Watch” tab or in our archives on SCOTUSwiki.
Read the rest of this entry »
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on June 18, the penultimate conference of this Term. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. A new blog feature: to access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, click on the “Petitions to Watch” tab in top navigation bar. Links to previous editions are also available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki.
Docket: 08-327
Title: Arizona, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, et al.
Issue: Do district court judges have the power to enact a rule requiring the defendants in pro-se inmate suits to provide super disclosure statements and to investigate the inmates’ allegations even when administrative remedies have not been exhausted?
Docket: 08-1053
Title: Sunoco, Inc., et al. v. McDonald, et al.
Issue: Whether Section 309 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which pre-empts “limitations periods” “specified in the State statute of limitations or under common law,” includes and pre-empts state statutes of repose.
Docket: 08-1109
Title: Porter v. United States
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 471 & 472, which prohibit making or passing “counterfeit[]” obligations of the United States, require the Government to prove, and the jury to find, that a bill was not only fake, but also similar enough to genuine currency to deceive an honest and unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care.
Docket: 08-1149
Title: Cunningham v. United States
Issue: Does United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 apply with equal force to sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) such that a district court has discretion to reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment below the Guideline range?
Docket: 08-1152
Title: Srivastava v. United States
Issue: Whether all of the evidence seized pursuant to search warrants should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule, where the supervising officer believed that the warrants imposed no meaningful limits on the items that could be seized and where the executing officers seized a substantial volume of items not covered by the warrants.
Docket: 08-1165
Title: Levy v. Sterling Holding Company, LLC, et al.
Issue: Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new Rule 16b-3, exempting from disgorgement those short-swing profits realized from an insider’s acquisition of securities from the insider’s own company – is a lawful interpretation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and whether it can apply retroactively where it serves to clarify an ambiguity in a prior version of the rule.
Docket: 08-1169; 08-1207
Title: Capital One Bank, N.A., fka Capital One Bank, et al., v. Commissioner of Revenue of Massachusetts ; Geoffrey, Inc., v. Commission of Revenue Massachusetts
Issue: Whether the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts violated the Commerce Clause by permitting a State to tax the income of an out-of-state corporation that does not maintain a physical presence in the taxing State.
Docket: 08-1194
Title: Arkansas Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund, Paper, A.F. of L., et al. v. Bayer AG and Bayer Corp., et al
Issue: Are pharmaceutical “reverse payment” agreements – whereby the manufacturer of a brand-name drug (and patent holder) pays a generic manufacturer (and alleged patent infringer) to not launch a generic version of the brand-name drug – per se lawful without regard to the amount of cash paid or the strength of the underlying patent challenge?
Docket: 08-1223
Title: Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al.
Issue: Whether Medicaid recipients and providers may maintain a private cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce § 1396a(a)(30)(A) by asserting that the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates.
Docket: 08-1224
Title: United States v. Comstock
Issue: Whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) “sexually dangerous” persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) “sexually dangerous” persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial.
Cases in which the Solicitor General filed an invitation brief:
Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S. ex rel. Wilson (08-304) (SG recommended certiorari be granted)
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on June 11. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. A new blog feature: to access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, click on the “Petitions to Watch” tab in top navigation bar. Links to previous editions are also available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki.
Docket: 08-763
Title: Mabry v. United States
Issue: Whether the holding in Roe v. Flores-Ortega is applicable in a habeas case where the defendant has entered into a plea agreement that includes a waiver of the right to take an appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence.
Docket: 08-998
Title: Hamilton v. Lanning
Issue: Did the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 eliminate judicial discretion by requiring an above-median income debtor to pay to unsecured creditors the net result reported on Official Form 22C?
Docket: 08-1134
Title: United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa
Issue: Where a debtor declares to discharge a student loan debt in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, has the debtor satisfied the due process requirements of Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co, and does the fact that the debtor failed to initiate an adversary proceeding render the enforceability of the discharge order under 11 U.S.C. 1327(a)inapplicable?
Docket: 08-1198
Title: Stolt-Nielsen S.A., et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
Issue: Whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration clauses are silent on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
Cases involving lawyers from Akin Gump or Howe & Russell (listed without regard to likelihood of being granted):
Docket: 08-987
Title: Campa v. United States
Issue: Did the Eleventh Circuit err in holding that petitioners did not establish a right to change venue and does a party’s failure to use all of its peremptory strikes to strike all minority members of the juror per se preclude a prima facie challenge under Batson v. Kentucky ?
[Akin Gump represents the petitioner]
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on June 4. As always, the list contains 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, visit our archives on SCOTUSwiki.
Docket: 08-1104
Title: Tankersley v. United States
Issue: Whether a Sentencing Guidelines departure should be subject to appellate review that is conducted prior to, and distinctly from, review of the ultimate sentence for reasonableness and whether the Supreme Court’s holding in Williams v. United States–that a sentencing court’s use of an erroneous ground for departure constitutes an incorrect application of the Guidelines–remains valid after United States v. Booker.
Docket: 08-1107
Title: Hertz Corporation v. Friend
Issue: Whether the location of a nationwide corporation’s headquarters can be considered for purposes of determining principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Docket: 08-1119 and 08-1225
Title: Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A., et al. v. United States ; United States v. Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A., et al.
Issue: Whether an attorney who provides bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person in return for valuable consideration, and who does not fall within one of the five exceptions, is a “debt relief agency” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. 526 and whether 11 U.S.C. 528 violates the First Amendment.
Docket: 08-1120
Title: American Home Products Corporation v. Ferrari
Issue: Does the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempt a design defect state-law claim against a vaccine manufacturer?
Docket: 08-1175 and 08-1229
Title: Florida v. Powell and Florida v. Rigterink
Issue: Must a suspect be expressly advised to his right to counsel during questioning and if so, does the failure to provide this express advice vitiate Miranda v. Arizona?
Docket: 08-1237
Title: South Carolina v. Council
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court of South Carolina properly applied Strickland v. Washington when it found ineffectiveness of defense counsel in the capital sentencing phase of trial.
Docket: 08-1243
Title: Michigan v. Swafford
Issue: Is a document from a state law-enforcement agency notifying the United States Marshal that a federal pretrial detainee is wanted to face pending charges a detainer, and if not, does it become a detainer if forwarded by the United States Marshal to the appropriate federal correctional institution after the pretrial detainee is convicted of the pending federal charges?
Cases involving lawyers from Akin Gump or Howe & Russell (listed without regard to likelihood of being granted):
Docket: 08-846
Title: Navajo Nation, et al. v. United States Forest Service, et al.
Issue: Whether a governmental action cannot constitute a “substantial burden” under RFRA unless it forces individuals to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit or coerces them by threatening civil or criminal sanctions to act contrary to their religious beliefs.
[Akin Gump and Howe and Russell represent the petitioners]
Tom
Amy
Pattie
Kevin
Lyle
Erin
Anna
Adam
Adam
Jay
David