This morning, the Court issued an order list from last week's "Long Conference" that included denials of certiorari and invitations for the Acting Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States (CVSG).  No grants or summary orders were issued.  Our live-blog coverage of the orders is available here; the full order list is here.

Today’s denials of certiorari are on the full order list, and Lyle will cover several of them in greater detail in a follow-up post.

The Court took action this morning in 09-1238, Hollingsworth v. US District Court, the dispute over the release of videotape of the Proposition 8 trial in California. That case was vacated and remanded to the Ninth Circuit today with instructions for the circuit court to dismiss the case as moot.

The Court called for the views of the Acting Solicitor General this morning in the following cases:

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Groves

Docket: 09-1212
Issue(s): 1) Whether “consignee” can be properly defined in railroad tariffs as the party named as consignee on a bill of lading that physically accepts delivery of all freight consigned to it, or whether the definition of “consignee” in such tariffs must also require proof that the party so named on the bill of lading explicitly consented to being named as consignee before accepting delivery; 2) whether the Supreme Court should resolve the circuit split over the definition of “consignee”; and 3) whether the courts have subject matter jurisdiction to interpret the terms or expand the requirements of a railroad's rail car demurrage tariff.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena

Docket: 09-1254
Issue(s): (1) Whether, in enacting a state statute extending the statute of limitations applicable to claims for the recovery of property stolen during the Holocaust against museums and galleries, the State of California was addressing an area of “traditional state responsibility” without intruding on the federal foreign affairs power; (2) whether a state statute extending the statute of limitations for the recovery of property stolen during the Holocaust, which does not conflict with any federal statute, treaty or policy, is preempted by the federal foreign affairs power to make and resolve war; and (3) whether California Code of Civil Procedure § 354.3 is facially unconstitutional when the application to the case at bar poses no constitutional infirmity.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Saleh v. Titan Corp.

Docket: 09-1313
Issue(s): 1) Whether the court of appeals erred by finding that claims for torture and other war crimes cannot be brought against private actors under the Alien Tort Statute; and 2) whether the court of appeals erred by creating a “battle-field preemption” doctrine that extends derivative sovereign immunity to contractors.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Iron Thunderhorse v. Pierce

Docket: 09-1353
Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals misinterpreted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., to require only a minimal showing that a prison grooming rule which concededly imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise is the “least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.”

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund v. Omnicare

Docket: 09-1400
Issue(s): Whether claims under Securities Act § 11, 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a), for which proof of fraud or mistake is no element of prima facie liability, are subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement, requiring that a party alleging claims of fraud or mistake “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake”; (2) whether investors seeking relief under Securities Act § 11, for which neither negligence nor fraud is an element of liability, may be required to plead facts showing either fraud or negligence; and (3) whether the courts reverse the burden that Congress placed on certain defendants, of demonstrating due diligence as an affirmative defense, by requiring plaintiffs to plead facts rebutting it.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

  • Invited: October 4, 2010

Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. (Granted )

Docket: 09-1403
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Fifth Circuit correctly held that plaintiffs in securities fraud actions must not only satisfy the requirements to trigger a rebuttable presumption of fraud on the market, but must also establish loss causation at class certification by a preponderance of admissible evidence without merits discovery; (2) whether the Fifth Circuit improperly considered the merits of the underlying litigation when it held that a plaintiff must establish loss causation to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

The Court also called for the views of the Acting Solicitor General in 126-Original, Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado; we will publish details on that case shortly.

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline, Featured