Today’s Orders – Four Grants
Today’s orders list is now available here. Today’s granted cases are:
07-320: Davis v. FEC (on direct appeal, not a writ of certiorari)
07-371: Taylor v. Sturgell
07-474: Enquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture.
07-6053: Giles v. California
Available filings can be found after the jump.
Docket: 07-320
Case name: Davis v. Federal Election Commission
Issue: Whether BCRA’s so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment,” which relaxes campaign finance limits for opponents of congressional candidates spending more than $350,000 of their own money, violates either the First or Fifth Amendments.
- Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
- Jurisdictional statement
- Motion to dismiss or affirm
__________________
Docket: 07-371
Case name: Taylor v. Sturgell
Issue: Whether a FOIA request may be barred by res judicata on grounds the petitioner was “virtually represented” by a close associate who previously sought disclosure of the same documents.
- Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Brief in opposition (United States)
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Docket: 07-474
Case name: Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture
Issue: Whether traditional rational basis equal protection analysis, the so-called ‘class of one’ legal theory, applies to public employment decisions.
__________________
Docket: 07-6053
Case name: Giles v. California
Issue: Whether criminal defendants forfeit their Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause Claims upon a showing the defendant caused the unavailability of the witness or upon a showing the defendant’s actions were undertaken specifically to prevent the witness from testifying.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of California)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Amicus brief of Professor Richard Friedman (in support of the petitioner)
(Hat tip for cert filings: The Confrontation Blog)
Does anyone know the question presented in Giles v. California? I can’t find anything on the SCOTUS website.
Comment by Jennifer Bontrager — January 11, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
The filings in Giles are available here:
http://confrontationright.blogspot.com/2007/12/two-pending-cert-petitions.html
The question presented is:
Does a criminal defendant “forfeit” his or her Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause claims upon a mere showing that the defendant has caused the unavailability of a witness, as some courts have held, or must there also be an additional showing that the defendant’s actions were undertaken for the purpose
of preventing the witness from testifying, as other courts have held?
Comment by Stephen Aslett — January 11, 2008 @ 3:24 pm