Petitions to Watch | Conference of 1.9.09

This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on January 9. 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. (Thanks to Kristina Moore for assistance in collecting the filings for the list.) To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, visit our archives on SCOTUSwiki.

Issues on our current list include the extent of Iraq’s sovereign immunity in federal court, allegations of copyright infringement stemming from on-demand television services, and the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. For the full list of petitions, continue reading after the jump.

Conference of January 9, 2008

__________________

Docket: 07-663
Case name: AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan v. West
Issue: Whether AK Steel’s failure to use a “whipsaw calculation” when determining the value of lump sum distributions to early retirees caused a forfeiture of benefits in violation of ERISA.

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
  Brief amicus curiae of United States (recommending denial of certiorari)
• Supplemental brief of petitioners

__________________

Docket: 07-952
Case name: Denton v. Hyman
Issue: Whether a state court judgment holding a corporate fiduciary liable for misappropriation of corporate assets is dischargeable in bankruptcy.

• Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Brief amicus curiae of United States (recommending denial of certiorari)
• Supplemental brief of petitioner

__________________

Docket: 07-956
Case name: Biomedical Patent Management Corp. v. California Dept. of Health Services
Issue: Whether a state that has sought to enforce its own patent rights in federal court waives its sovereign immunity against allegations of patent infringement.

• Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of the Chamber of Commerce (in support of the petition)
• Brief amicus curiae of the United States (recommending denial of certiorari)
• Supplemental brief of petitioner

__________________

Docket: 07-1090
Case name: Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, et al.
Issue: Whether U.S. Courts have jurisdiction over Iraq in claims involving alleged misdeeds that occurred during Saddam Hussein’s regime.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of United States (recommending grant of certiorari)

__________________

Docket: 07-1152
Title: Weldon, et al. v. Norfolk Southern Railway
Issue: Whether an Ohio law that imposes filing requirements on asbestos-related claims is preempted for claims filed under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Ohio)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of United States (recommending denial of certiorari)

__________________

Docket: 07-1327
Title: Albertson’s v. Kanter
Issue: Whether the federal food and drug laws preempt state law claims over alleged failures to properly label artificially colored salmon. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner.)

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of California)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of Food Marketing Institute, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of Rexall Sundown, Inc. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of United States (recommending denial of certiorari)
• Supplemental brief of petitioners Albertson’s, Inc.

__________________

Docket: 07-1524
Title: Carlota Copper Company v. Friends of Pinto Creek, et al.
Issue: Whether the Environmental Protection Agency correctly issued a permit allowing discharges from a copper mine into a water body identified as impaired by the state of Arizona.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition (federal government)
• Brief in opposition (Friends of Pinto Creek)
• Petitioner’s reply (to federal respondents)
• Petitioner’s reply (to Friends of Pinto Creek)
• Brief amici curiae of National Association of Home Builders, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Arizona Mining Association, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of National Association of Clean Water Agencies, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of Federal Water Quality Coalition (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-199
Title: Georgia v. Florida, et al.
Issue: The validity of, and ability of Florida and Alabama to challenge, a settlement agreement involving water allocation from Lake Lanier in Georgia.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition (federal respondents)
• Brief in opposition (Alabama and Florida)
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________
Docket: 08-212
Title: Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.
Issue: Whether under United States v. Klein (1872) Congress can amend Section 4412(b)(1) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, changing the standard administrative agencies apply to pending, non-final actions.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition (Federal respondents)
• Brief in opposition (Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc.)
• Brief in opposition (Petro Star, Inc.)
• Brief in opposition (OXY USA Inc., and Union Oil Company of California)
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-289; 08-294
Title: Horne v. Flores; Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives v. Flores
Issue: Whether the courts below improperly declined to modify an injunction against Arizona for failing to provide sufficient funding for non-English speaking school children.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (08-289)
• Petition for certiorari (08-294)
• Brief in opposition (Flores)
• Brief in opposition (Arizona)
• Petitioner’s reply (08-294)
• Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation (in support of petitioners)
• Brief amici curiae of the American Legislative Exchange Council as Amicus Curiae (in support of petitioners)

__________________

Docket: 08-305
Title: Forest Grove School District, Petitioner v. T. A.
Issue: Whether parents of a student who has never previously received special education services from a school district may be eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for reimbursement of private school tuition. (Note: the Court granted certiorari to resolve this question in Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. (06-637) but affirmed the opinion below by an equally divided vote.)

• Opinion below (9th Circuit).
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of the National School Boards Association, et al. (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-322
Title: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, et al.
Issue: Whether the appellant is eligible to “bail out” from the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and whether Congress provided sufficient justification of current voting discrimination when extended the requirement in 2006 for another twenty-five years.

• Opinion below (D.C. District)
• Statement as to jurisdiction
• Motion to affirm filed by appellee Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General
• Motion to affirm filed by appellees Intervenor-Appellees Texas State Conference of NAACP, et al.
• Reply of appellant

__________________

Docket: 08-327
Title: Arizona, et al., v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, et al.
Issue: Whether Arizona district court judges’ violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, federalism principles, separation of powers principles, and due-process rights by ordering that prison employee defendants in inmate suits filed pro se investigate the allegations against them and produce disclosure statements.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• (No brief in opposition filed)

__________________

Docket: 08-349
Title: General Motors Corporation, v. Boyd Bryant, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Issue: Whether the courts below improperly granted class certification in a suit alleging the sale of more than 4 million vehicles with defective parking-brakes.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Arkansas)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, et al. (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-402
Title: Kansas v. Morton
Issue: Whether an act of police deception during the interrogation of a suspect can itself render an otherwise voluntary confession “involuntary” under the Due Process Clause.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Kansas)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 08-430
Title: Schriro v. Correll
Issue: Whether the court of appeals properly applied the prejudice standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984) when it concluded that the defendant’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing in failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence.

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

__________________

Docket: 08-444
Title: Cruzado-Laureano v. United States
Issue: Whether a district court on remand for resentencing retains the discretion to hear issues and take evidence beyond the scope of the error addressed by the appellate court, where the appellate court has not expressly limited the district court’s authority on remand.

• Opinion below (1st Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-448
Title: Cable News Network, Inc., et al., v. CSC Holdings, Inc., et al
Issue: Whether, under the Copyright Act of 1976, Cablevision’s on-demand service infringes the petitioners’ exclusive copyrights by copying, storing, and transmitting its programs without an additional license.

• Opinion below (2d Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of Various Professors (in support of petitioners)
• Brief amici curiae of Major League Baseball, et al. (in support of petitioners)
• Brief amici curiae of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al. (in support of petitioners)
• Brief amici curiae of Broadcast Music, Inc., et al. (in support of petitioners)
• Brief amici curiae of National Music Publishers’ Assocation, Inc. (in support of petitioners)
• Brief amici curiae of Screen Actors Guild, Inc, et al. (in support of petitioners)

__________________

Docket: 08-500
Title: Lambert v. Hartmann
Issue: Whether a motorist whose personal identifying information was stolen when a traffic ticket containing her Social Security was posted online may sue the responsible county officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

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

__________________

Docket: 08-539
Title: Republic of Iraq, et al., v. Robert Simon, et al.
Issue: Whether the Republic of Iraq possesses sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of the United States courts in cases regarding alleged crimes under Saddam Hussein’s regime.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-554
Title: Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne
Issue: Whether Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, which gives the Secretary of Interior discretion to acquire lands for Native Americans, is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition (federal respondents)
• Brief in opposition (Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians)

__________________

Docket: 08-559
Title: E. K. McDaniel, Warden, et al., v. Troy Brown
Issue: Whether, on federal habeas review, the evidence underlying the defendant’s conviction for sexual assault was clearly insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia (1979).

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

__________________

Docket: 08-565
Title: Mukasey v. ACLU
Issue: Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the First Amendment.

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

__________________

Docket: 08-585
Title: Ohio v. Wade
Issue: Whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars or limits the trier of fact in a second trial from considering evidence that is relevant to the remaining charges.

• Opinion below (Court of Appeals of Ohio, Franklin County)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 08-598
Title: Bobby v. Bies
Issue: Whether the holding of a state post-conviction hearing to determine the mental capacity of a capital defendant whose death sentence was affirmed before Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants, violates the Double Jeopardy clause.

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

__________________