In other news . . .
on Oct 6, 2014 at 10:40 am
As I noted above, the Court did not grant any new cases today, and it denied review of the seven petitions arising out of challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. The Court also invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in six cases:
Coventry Health Care of Missouri, Inc. v. Nevils: preemption and the law governing the provision of benefits to federal workers and their families
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins: whether, based on the violation of a federal statute, Congress can give a right to sue to an individual who has not actually been harmed
Athena Cosmetics, Inc. v. Allergan, Inc.: implied preemption of state-claims by the federal food and drug law
Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Kobold: similar issues as Coventry Health Care
Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians: jurisdiction of Indian tribal courts over non-members
Ridley School District v. M.R.: operation of “stay put” provision of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
There is no deadline for the Solicitor General to file briefs in these cases.Because the Court had not reviewed new petitions since the end of June, the list of cases in which it had denied review was lengthy. The list included:
- Runyon v. United States, a federal death penalty case in which the petition was filed over a year ago (I covered the case for this blog over the summer.)
- Moores v. Hildes, a securities case in which the federal government had agreed that review should be granted (Lyle recently covered the filing of the government’s brief.)
- Mehanna v. United States, involving the circumstances in which a citizen’s political and religious speech may constitute provision of “material support or resources” to a foreign terrorist organization
- Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots, which had asked the Court to consider whether boat maintenance work counts towards the minimum required to sue as a “seaman” under the Jones Act
- Panetti v. Stephens, an Eighth Amendment challenge by a Texas death row inmate
- Nebraska v. Mantich, in which the Court had been asked to consider whether its decision in Miller v. Alabama, on life sentences without parole for juveniles, applies retroactively
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as co-counsel to the petitioner in the Dollar General case. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]
