Breaking News

More on Today’s Order List

Here are the new cases in which the Court granted cert. (or, in No. 04-1581, Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, noted probable jurisdiction):

No. 04-1581: Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC: Whether as-applied challenges to the prohibition on corporate disbursements for electioneering communications are prohibited after McConnell v. FEC and, if so, whether that prohibition is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case (you can read Marty’s past posts on the issue here and here; the SG’s motion to dismiss or affirm is here);

No. 04-1324, Day v. Crosby: In a habeas proceeding, whether state waives limitations defense when it fails to plead or otherwise raise that defense and expressly concedes that habeas petition was timely; and whether Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases permits district court to dismiss habeas petition sua sponte after state has filed answer based on ground not raised in answer.

No. 04-1327, Holmes v. South Carolina: Whether state’s rule governing admissibility of third-party guilt evidence violates criminal defendant’s constitutional right to present complete defense grounded in due process, confrontation, and compulsory process clauses.

No. 04-1371, Merrill Lynch v. Dabit: Whether Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act preempts state law class action claims based upon allegedly fraudulent statements or omissions brought solely on behalf of persons who were induced to hold or retain (but not purchase or sell) securities.

No. 04-1414, United States v. Grubbs: Whether the Fourth Amendment requires that evidence be suppressed when obtained pursuant to an anticipatory search warrant after warrant’s triggering condition is satisfied, but when that triggering condition is not set forth either in the warrant itself or in an affidavit that is both incorporated into the warrant and shown to the person whose property is being searched.

No. 04-1477, Jones v. Flowers: When a notice of a tax sale or property forfeiture is mailed but subsequently returned as undeliverable, does due process require the government to make any additional efforts to locate the owner of the property before it takes the property?

No. 04-1506, Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services v. Ahlborn: Whether federal Medicaid law entitles a state to full reimbursement from personal injury settlement proceeds of Medicaid benefits paid on the recipient’s behalf, regardless whether a portion of the settlement proceeds is designated as compensation for medical care.

Nos. 04-1528, 1530, & 1697: Randall v. Sorrell, Vermont Republican State Committee v. Sorrell, and Sorrell v. Randall: Challenges to expenditure limits imposed by Vermont campaign finance laws. You can read more about this case, as well as Wisconsin Right to Life, in Rick Hasen’s post yesterday on his Election Law blog.

No. 04-1544, Marshall v. Marshall: Questions regarding scope of probate exception to federal jurisdiction. [Disclosure: G&H for respondent.]

Nos. 04-1704 & -1724: DaimlerChrysler v. Cuno & Wilkins v. Cuno: Whether Ohio’s investment tax credit, which seeks to encourage economic development by providing taxpayers with credits when they install new machinery and equipment, violates the commerce clause and whether dormant commerce clause prohibits states from seeking to attract new business investment in state by offering credits against general corporate franchise or income tax, when the amount of the credit is based on new in-state investment; the Court also asked the parties to address whether respondents have standing to challenge the tax credit.

No. 04-9728, Samson v. California regarding parole searches.