Details on today’s order list
on Jun 27, 2011 at 10:41 am
This morning the Court granted cert. in a whopping eleven cases. The complete order list from the June 23 Conference is available here. Information on, as well as the briefs in, today’s granted cases are available below. In addition to the cases listed below, the Court also granted cert. in No. 10-1261, Credit Suisse Securities LLC v. Simmonds, a case involving the statute of limitations for securities litigation (case page forthcoming). In FCC v. Fox, the Court granted cert. limited to one question: whether the FCC’s current indecency enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendments. And in United States v. Jones, the Court asked the parties to brief an additional question:   whether the government violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the tracking device without a valid warrant and without his consent. The Court will hold a “clean-up Conference” today (see John Elwood’s post for more details), with orders to be announced tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.
 Granted cases:
Title: National Meat Association v. Harris
Docket: 10-224
Issue(s): (1) Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a “presumption against preemption†requires a “narrow interpretation†of the Federal Meat Inspection Act’s express preemption provision, in conflict with this Court’s decision in Jones v. Rath Packing Co. (1977) that the provision must be given “a broad meaningâ€? (2) When federal food safety and humane handling regulations specify that animals (here, swine) which are or become nonambulatory on federally inspected premises are to be separated and held for observation and further disease inspection, did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a state criminal law which requires that such animals not be held for observation and disease inspection, but instead be immediately euthanized, was not preempted by the FMIA? (3) Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding more generally that a state criminal law which states that no slaughterhouse may buy, sell, receive, process, butcher, or hold a nonambulatory animal is not a preempted attempt to regulate the “premises, facilities, [or] operations†of federally regulated slaughterhouses?
Certiorari stage documents:
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition of Humane Society of America et al.
- Brief in opposition of Edmund Brown et al.
- Petitioner’s supplemental brief
- Amicus brief of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians et al.
- Petitioner’s reply
CVSG Information:
- Invited: January 18, 2011
- Filed: May 26, 2011 (Deny)
Docket: 10-1265
Issue(s): Whether a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings is entitled to replace his court-appointed counsel with another court-appointed lawyer just because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence.
Certiorari stage documents:
Docket: 10-1121
Issue(s): (1) May a State, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, condition employment on the payment of a special union assessment intended solely for political and ideological expenditures without first providing a notice that includes information about that assessment and provides an opportunity to object to its exaction? (2) May a State, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, condition continued public employment on the payment of union agency fees for purposes of financing political expenditures for ballot measures?
Certiorari stage documents:
Docket: 10-1219
Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff, who is appealing the denial of an application of a patent by commencing a civil action against the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in a federal district court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145, may introduce new evidence that could have been presented to the agency in the first instance; and 2) whether, when new evidence is introduced under Section 145, the district court may decide de novo the factual questions to which the evidence pertains, without giving deference to the prior decision of the PTO.
Certiorari stage documents:
- Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition (forthcoming)
- Petitioner’s supplemental brief (forthcoming)
- Respondent’s supplemental brief
- Petitioner’s reply
Docket: 10-1293
Issue(s): Whether the FCC’s current indecency enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendments.
Certiorari stage documents:
- Opinion below (2d Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition of respondents ABC, Inc et al.
- Brief in opposition of respondents Fox Television Stations, Inc. et al.
- Brief in opposition of respondent-intervenors Center for Creative Voices in Media et al.
- Brief in opposition of respondents ABC Television Affiliates Association et al.
- Petitioners’ reply
- Amicus brief of Parents Television Council
Docket: 10-844
Issue(s): Whether the counterclaim provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act applies when (1) there is “an approved method of using the drug†that “the patent does not claim,†and (2) the brand submits “patent information†to the FDA that misstates the patent’s scope, requiring “correct[ion].â€
Certiorari stage documents:
- Opinion below (3d Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioners’ supplemental brief
- Respondents’ supplemental brief
- Petitioners’ reply
- Amicus brief of TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
- Amicus brief of Consumer Federation of America et al.
- Amicus brief of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Amicus brief of Apotex, Inc.
- Amicus Generic Pharmaceutical Association
CVSG Information:
- Invited: March 28, 2011
- Filed: May 26, 2011 (Grant)
Docket: 10-1195
Issue(s): Did Congress divest the federal district courts of their federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over private actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?
Certiorari stage documents:
- Opinion below (11th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of National Consumer Law Center et al.
- Petitioner’s reply
Docket: 10-704
Issue(s): (1) Whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they obtained a facially valid warrant to search for firearms, firearm-related materials, and gang-related items in the residence of a gang member and felon who had threatened to kill his girlfriend and fired a sawed-off shotgun at her? (2) Whether United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), and Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), should be reconsidered or clarified?
Certiorari stage documents:
Docket: 10-1016
Issue(s): Whether Congress constitutionally abrogated states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it passed the self-care leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Certiorari stage documents:
- Opinion below (4th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
Docket: 10-1259
Issue(s):  1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment; and 2) whether the government violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the tracking device without a valid warrant and without his consent.
Certiorari stage documents:
- Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc. et al.
- Petitioner’s reply
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
