Petitions to Watch | Conference of 11.7.08

This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on November 7. 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, including the list for the upcoming conference of October 31, visit our archives on SCOTUSwiki.

Conference of November 7, 2008

__________________

Docket: 08-146
Title: Arthur Andersen LLP, et al. v. Carlisle, et al.
Issue: Whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, federal circuits courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals of denials of motions to compel arbitration raised by parties that did not sign the underlying arbitration agreement.

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Supplemental brief of petitioner

__________________

Docket: 08-151
Title: Ohio v. Citizens for Tax Reform, et al.
Issue: Whether, under the First Amendment, states may prohibit the payment of electoral petition circulators on a per signature basis.

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

__________________

Docket: 08-177
Title: O’Neill v. Coughlan
Issue: Whether, under Younger v. Harris (1971), federal courts should have abstained from enjoining a state investigation of a state Supreme Court candidate under the state’s code of judicial conduct.

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 08-309
Title: Attebury v. Revels
Issue: Whether, under the federal habeas statute, Missouri’s denial of unconditional release for an insanity acquitee was a clear violation of Foucha v. Louisiana (1992).

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

__________________

Docket: 08-330
Title: New York Law Publishing Company, et al., v. Jane Doe, et al.
Issue: Whether, under the First Amendment, the blanket sealing of a case is presumptively unconstitutional.

• Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Letter of September 25, 2008, from counsel for petitioner
• Brief in opposition
• Brief Amici Curiae of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Twenty-Nine Media Organizations (in support of petitioners)

__________________