Petitions to Watch | Conference of 2.20.09

This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on February 20. 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.

Conference of February 20, 2009
__________________

UPDATE:  08-352 and 08-512 have been taken off this list in light of the Solicitor General’s motion today. 08-694 was left off the original post in error. The filings are below.

__________________

Docket: 08-457
Title: International Shipping Agency, Inc., v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, et al. 
Issue:  Whether a state-created public corporation qualifies for sovereign immunity and is an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorarii
• Brief in opposition
• Brief in opposition (on behalf of the U.S.)
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-472
Title: Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono
Issue:  Whether an individual has Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and if an Act of Congress directing the land be transferred to a private entity is a permissible accommodation.

• Opinion below (9^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, et al. (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-603
Title: Vos v. Barg
Issue:  Whether a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)(4)(B), preempts the Minnesota Medical Assistance estate recovery statute, which requires recovery of Medicaid benefits from the value of assets in a surviving spouse’s probate estate regardless of which spouse formally owned those assets when the recipient spouse died.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Minnesota)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-604
Title: Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen General Committee of Adjustment, Central Region
Issue: Whether the Railway Labor Act authorizes courts to set aside final arbitration awards for alleged violations of due process by the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and if the Board can adopt a new, retroactive interpretation of the standards governing its arbitration proceedings.

• Opinion below (7^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of the National Railway Labor Conference, et al. (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-624
Title: Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al.,  v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
Issue:  Whether a generic drug company has Article III standing to sue for a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed a drug patent, where the patentee had granted it an irrevocable covenant not to sue for infringement.

• Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of the Washington Legal Foundation (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of Pfizer, Inc. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-640
Title: Federal Insurance Company, et al., v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al
Issue:  Whether under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) a claim against an “agency or instrumentality” of a foreign state encompasses a claim against an individual foreign official; whether plaintiffs can use the statute’s “non-commercial torts” exception to sue a foreign state when the U.S. government has not designated it a state sponsor of terrorism; and whether U.S. courts have personal jurisdiction over foreign individuals alleged to have provided material support for a terrorist act within the U.S.

• Opinion below (2^nd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition(for Respondents HRH Crown Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, HRH Prince Naif Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, and HRH Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud)
• Brief in opposition (for Respondent Prince Mohamed al Faisal al Saud)
• Brief in opposition (for Respondent The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Saudi High Commission)
• Brief in opposition (for Respondent His Royal Highness Prince Turki Al-Faisal Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud)
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-694
Title: FTC v. Rambus Incorporated
Issue: Whether a firm violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act and creates a monopoly when it participates in a standard setting organization (SSO), fails to disclose its future patent intentions, and is then asserts its patent rights without pricing constraints.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Brief amici curiae of Hewlett-Packard Co. et al.  (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of American Antitrust Institute et al.  (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Twenty Scholars  (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of Nanya Technology Corporation (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Hynix et al.(in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-724
Title: Smith v. Spisak
Issue: Did the Sixth Circuit contravene AEDPA by improperly extending Mills v. Maryland?

• Opinion below (6^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-745
Title: Dumontier, et al., v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation
Issue:  Whether subcelluar damage from radiological injury constitutes “bodily injury” compensable under the Price-Anderson Act and if the federal statute preempts a state law under which plaintiffs could bring a claim for exposure to nuclear material.

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

__________________

Docket: 08-754
Title: Singleton, et al., v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., et al.
Issue:  Whether and under what circumstances a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A).

• Opinion below (5^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of Civil Procedure Law Professors (in support of petitioner)