At its Conference today, the Court will consider such issues as removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, and disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act.  This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues.


Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Tomlinson

Docket: 11-287

Issue: Whether a class action that is removed under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) and indisputably involves a potential class recovery exceeding $5 million may be remanded on the ground that the named plaintiff has purported to waive any recovery for class members above the jurisdictional threshold.

Certiorari-stage documents


Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc. v. Montz

 Docket:  11-143

Issue: Whether the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of implied contract and breach of confidence are preempted by the Copyright Act of 1976.

Certiorari-stage documents

  • Opinion below (9th Cir.)
  • Petition for certiorari
  • Brief in opposition (forthcoming)
  • Amicus brief of Reveille LLC (forthcoming)
  • Amicus brief of California Broadcasters Association (forthcoming)
  • Petitioners’ reply (forthcoming)


Hardy v. Cross

Docket: 11-74

Issue: Whether the court of appeals violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Supreme Court precedent by overriding state court determinations of law and fact and awarding habeas relief based on a constitutional rule that this Court has never recognized and that the Seventh Circuit derived entirely from its own precedent. 

Certiorari-stage documents


Wetzel v. Lambert

Docket: 11-38

Issue: Did the Third Circuit fail to properly apply the habeas deference standard to the state court’s rejection of respondent’s Brady claim?

Certiorari-stage documents


Cash v. Maxwell

Docket: 10-1548

Issue: (1) Whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court may grant habeas relief on a claim that the state-court conviction rested on perjured testimony absent proof that the prosecution knew that the challenged testimony was false and when the state post-conviction court deemed the testimony truthful; (2) whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief on a claim alleging suppression of exculpatory evidence when that evidence was unknown to law enforcement officials working on the case and without considering whether the state court might have rejected this claim.

Certiorari-stage documents


Bobby v. Dixon

Docket: 10-1540

Issue: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit contravened the directives of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) when it abandoned the “in custody” requirement of Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona; (2) whether the interviewer’s state of mind has any bearing on whether a suspect’s statement is voluntary under the established law of Oregon v. Elstad; and (3) whether the Sixth Circuit exceeded its authority under AEDPA when it condemned the use of the “prisoner’s dilemma” where the police indicate that favorable treatment will go to the first suspect who cooperates as an unconstitutionally coercive interrogation tactic.

Certiorari-stage documents


Magner v. Gallagher

Docket: 10-1032

Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and, if so, (2) what test should be used to analyze them.

Certiorari-stage documents


Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Kiera Flynn, Petitions to watch | Conference of November 4, 2011, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 4, 2011, 11:36 AM),