Petitions to Watch | Conference of 4.23.10
on Apr 20, 2010 at 9:41 am
This edition of â€œPetitions to Watchâ€ features cases up for consideration at the Justicesâ€™ next private conference on Friday, April 23.Â As always, it lists the petitions on the Courtâ€™s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.Â Links to all previous editions are available in ourÂ SCOTUSwiki archive.
Title: De la Rosa v. Holder
Issue: Whether a lawful permanent resident who wasÂ convicted by guilty plea of an offense that renders himÂ deportable and excludable under differently phrasedÂ statutory subsections, but who did not leave the UnitedÂ States between his conviction and the commencementÂ of removal proceedings, is categorically foreclosed fromÂ seeking discretionary relief from removal under formerÂ Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Title: The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission
Issues: (1) Whether the district court appliedÂ proper legal standards to deny a preliminaryÂ injunction permitting The Real Truth AboutÂ Obama, Inc. (RTAO) to engage in issue advocacyÂ concerning the positions of a public figure on issues inÂ public debate; (2) whether the First Amendment requires speech-protectiveÂ preliminary-injunction standards for issueÂ advocacy; and (3) whetherÂ the following provisions violate theÂ First or Fifth Amendment, and/or exceedÂ statutory authority: (a)Â 11 C.F.R. Â§ 100.22(b), the Federal Election Commissionâ€™sÂ non-“magic words” “express advocacy”Â definition; (b)Â 11 C.F.R. Â§ 100.57, FECâ€™s rule treating all of aÂ donation as a regulable “contribution” if made inÂ response to a communication “indicat[ing] thatÂ any portion…will be used to support or opposeÂ the election of a…federal candidate”; (c)Â FECâ€™s enforcement policy for imposing “politicalÂ committee” status based on activity other thanÂ regulable election-related activity; and (d)Â 11 C.F.R. Â§ 114.15, FECâ€™s test for determiningÂ regulable “electioneering communications” thatÂ purports to implement the “appeal to vote” test.
Title: Ortiz v. Jordan
Issue:Â May a party appeal an order denying summaryÂ judgment after a full trial on the merits if the partyÂ chose not to appeal the order before trial?
Title: Simmons v. Galvin
Issues: (1) Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1973, applies to state felon disenfranchisement laws that result in discrimination on the basis of race; and (2) whether the Massachusetts felon disenfranchisement scheme established in 2000 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution as applied to those Massachusetts felons who were incarcerated and yet had the right to vote prior to 2000?
Title: Ogle v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland
Issue: WhetherÂ an unsecured creditor in aÂ bankruptcy case may include post-petitionÂ attorneysâ€™ fees as part of its pre-petition claim.
Title: Hogan v. Kaltag Tribal Council
Issue:Â Whether the hundreds of Indian tribes throughout theÂ State of Alaska have authority to initiate andÂ adjudicate child custody proceedings involving a nonmemberÂ and then to compel the State to give full faithÂ and credit to the decrees entered in those proceedings.
- Opinion below (Unpublished, 9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioners’ reply
- Amicus brief of Edward Parks and Donielle Taylor
Title: Mountain America v. Huffman
Issues: (1) Whether a taxpayerâ€™s claim, on EqualÂ Protection grounds, that its adÂ valorem property tax assessment is excessive may be defeated byÂ a separate neighborhood designation which is basedÂ exclusively on recent market pricing differences withÂ otherwise comparable properties; (2) whether such a claimÂ inherently fails due to the absenceÂ of a separate appraisal of the taxpayerâ€™s property; (3) whether such a claim may beÂ defeated by the contention that the systematic annualÂ underassessment of the other properties occurred overÂ several years prior to the taxpayerâ€™s acquisition of itsÂ property and, thus, did not preclude prospectiveÂ seasonal cure of the disparity; and (4) whether the institutional interest of the countyÂ commission in the fiscal affairs of the county, as itÂ considered the merits of the petitionersâ€™ objections toÂ their ad valorem property tax assessments, constitutedÂ a facial violation of their rights to Due Process.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of the West Virginia Manufacturers Association
Below, between now and the April 23 conference,Â we will note any petitions that are relisted for this conference from previous editions of Petitions to Watch.