Late last week and on Monday of this week, the Solicitor General filed four amicus briefs in response to earlier calls by the Court for the views of the United States.   Notably, the Solicitor General recommends a grant in Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Reinhard, a petition raising an Eleventh Amendment question.   Details about all four cases follow the jump.

In Holy See v. Doe (09-1), the Solicitor General recommends that the Court grant certiorari, vacate the decision below, and remand the case for reconsideration.  Alternatively, the Solicitor General recommends that the petition be denied.

  • Issue: Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's tort exception confers jurisdiction when the tortious act itself falls outside the scope of employment but state law extends vicarious liability based upon non-tortious precursor conduct falling within the scope of employment.
  • All of the cert. papers are available on the case’s SCOTUSwiki page, here.

In Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Reinhard (09-529), the Solicitor General recommends that the Court grant the state’s petition.

  • Issue: Whether the Eleventh Amendment categorically precludes an independent state agency from bringing an action in federal court against state officials for prospective injunctive relief to remedy a violation of federal law.
  • All of the cert. papers are available on the case’s SCOTUSwiki page, here.

In Thompson v. North American Stainless (09-291), the Solicitor General recommends that the Court deny certiorari.

  • Issue: Is a third party afforded protection under the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), based solely upon his association with an employee who has engaged in protected activity?
  • All of the cert. papers in the case are available on its SCOTUSwiki page, here.

In Providence Hospital v. Moses (09-438), the Solicitor General recommends that certiorari be denied.

  • Issue: (1) Whether the requirement of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) that any individual who comes to a hospital's emergency department with an emergency medical condition be screened and stabilized should be expanded to continue indefinitely, after the individual has been admitted to the hospital; and (2) whether a regulation by the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services clarifying that EMTALA is inapplicable to hospital inpatients, 42 C.F.R. § 489.24(d)(2)(i), is valid and applies retroactively.
  • All of the cert. papers in the case are available on its SCOTUSwiki page, here.

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline