on Jul 8, 2010 at 3:46 pm
The “Notable Petitions” feature lists petitions that likely will later appear on our “Petitions to Watch” list when they are ready for consideration by the Justices. Â “Notable Petitions” are those that Tom has identified as raising one or more questions that has a reasonable chance of being granted in an appropriate case. Â We generally do not attempt to evaluate whether the case presents an appropriate vehicle to decide the question, which is a critical consideration in determining whether certiorari will be granted.
The newest notable petitions, along with the opinions below and any other briefs filed at the Court so far, follow the jump.
Title: Rosillo-Puga v. Holder; Mendiola v. Holder
Docket: 09-1367; 09-1378
Issues: Whether the regulation 8 C.F.R. Â§ 1003.23(b)(1)Â is invalid under theÂ Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996Â because it denies immigrants whoÂ have departedÂ the United States their statutory right to file a motionÂ to reopen or reconsider an order of removability; and (2) whether the Tenth Circuit may deprive the immigration judge and Board ofÂ Immigration Appeals of discretionary authority to sua sponte reconsider or reopen removal proceedingsÂ by denying a petition for review based on reasons notÂ articulated in either the judgeâ€™s or BIAâ€™s orders denyingÂ the motion in the first instance.
- Opinions below (10th Circuit): 1367;Â 1378
- Petition for certiorari (1367)
- Petition for certiorari (1378)
Title: Bell v. Thompson
Issues: (1) WhetherÂ respondent Gregory Thompson is competent to beÂ executed, given that Ford v. Â Wainwright (1986) neither definedÂ competency in the Eighth Amendment context nor setÂ forth precise procedural requirements for determiningÂ competency for execution; (2) whether the Tennessee Supreme Courtâ€™s clarificationÂ of existing Tennessee appellate procedure wasÂ sufficient to warrant relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)Â from the district courtâ€™s judgment denying respondentÂ Thompsonâ€™s petition for writ of habeas corpus; and (3) whether the Sixth Circuitâ€™s decision exceeds theÂ scope of the certificate of appealability (COA) — andÂ thus the Courtâ€™s jurisdiction — under 28 U.S.C.Â Â§ 2253(c).
- Opinion below (6th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
Title: Sternberg v. Johnston
Issue: Whether 11 U.S.C. Â§ 362(k)(1) –Â specifying that an individual â€œinjuredâ€ by a willfulÂ violation of the Bankruptcy Code automatic stayÂ â€œshall recover actual damagesâ€ — encompasses compensationÂ for emotional distress.