Petitions to Watch | Conference of 2.15.08

The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of February 15. 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 see how PTW has fared since the start of the term, click here.

Issues raised in the current list of petitions include whether the exclusionary rule applies to evidence seized during a mistaken arrest due to the error of another law enforcement agency, whether certain inmates have a due process right to explanations for cellblock transfers, whether corporations can be held liable for a foreman’s OSHA violation, and whether Atkins claims can be raised for the first time on habeas. For the full list of petitions on our watch list, continue reading after the jump.

Conference of February 15, 2008

__________________

Docket: 07-513
Case name: Herring v. United States
Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule should apply to evidence seized incident to an arrest unlawful under the Fourth Amendment due to erroneous information negligently provided by another law enforcement agency.

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-515
Case name: Carpenter v. United States
Issue: Whether, under the Double Jeopardy Clause, if the government immediately appeals an order granting a new trial, the defendant may immediately appeal the sufficiency of the evidence at the original trial.

• Opinion below (1st Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Reply brief
• Amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-544
Case name: Chrones v. Pulido
Issue: Whether an erroneous jury instruction involving an element of a crime should be subject to structural or harmless error review.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-575
Case name: Perry v. Stevenson
Issue: Whether, under the Due Process Clause, prison officials must provide an explanation and opportunity to respond before transferring inmates awaiting resentencing to a more restrictive cell block.

• Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-581
Case name: 14 Penn Plaza LLC, et al., v. Pyett, et al.
Issue: Whether an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement waiving employees’ right to file statutory discrimination claims is enforceable.

• Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 07-606
Case name: John Carlo, Inc. v. Chao
Issue: Whether a corporation may be held liable for a willful violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act based on a knowing violation of the statute by a supervisor.

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of the Steel Erectors Association of America, Inc., et al. (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-610
Case name: Locke v. Karass
Issue: Whether a public sector union may include in non-members’ agency fees costs for litigation outside the bargaining unit.

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

__________________

Docket: 07-615
Case name: Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi
Issue: Whether a disputed judgment against a military contractor at issue between Iran and the United States before the Claims Tribunal in The Hague is subject to attachment under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-618
Case name: Goss International Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho
Issue: Whether a federal district court has “ancillary” subject matter jurisdiction to issue an anti-suit injunction barring foreign litigation.

• Opinion below (8th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of New Hampshire and Oregon (in support of the petitioner)
• Amicus brief of law professors (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-623
Case name: Ford Motor Co. v. City of Seattle
Issue: Whether, under the Dormant Commerce Clause, a city may tax receipts derived in part from within the city and in part from other states.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Washington)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of the Council on State Taxation, et al. (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-651
Case name: Entergy Corp., et al., v. Jenkins, et al.
Issue: Whether a state court may determine whether the bulk power supply arrangements of an interstate power pool governed by a FERC tariff violate state tort law.

• Opinion below (Court of Appeals of Texas)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of the Edison Electric Institute (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-653
Case name: Norris v. Simpson
Issue: Whether a capital defendant may raise a mental retardation claim for the first time on habeas if state proceedings became final before the Court’s decision banning execution of the mentally retarded in Atkins v. Virginia (2002).

• Opinion below (8th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 07-683
Case name: Schriro v. Lopez
Issue: Whether, under AEDPA, the defendant exhausted his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in state court.

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

__________________

Docket: 07-699
Case name: Five Star Parking v. Union Local 723, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Issue: Whether, under the National Labor Relations Act, an employer’s ability to impose its final wage offer after the parties reach impasse at the bargaining table may be subject to arbitration.

• Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 07-752
Case name: Novolog Bucks County v. CSX Transportation
Issue: Whether, under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, a transloader that accepts delivery of freight is automatically liable for demurrage charges under a rail carrier’s tariff.

• Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition (forthcoming)

__________________

Docket: 07-806
Case name: Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Accord
Issue: Whether, under the Due Process Clause, defendants’ liability for punitive damages in a mass tort trial may be adjudicated prior to a finding of compensatory liability.

• Petition for certiorari (includes appendix) (Supreme Court of West Virginia)
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of the Chamber of Commerce (in support of the petitioner)
• Amicus brief of Ciba Corporation (in support of the petitioner)

__________________