Breaking News

Petitions to Watch | Conference of 6.11.09

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]