At its Conference on May 1, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant’s untainted assets under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and preemption of California’s meal and rest break laws.

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.  Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.

22o144

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Court will grant Nebraska and Oklahoma leave to file an original action to seek a declaratory judgment stating that Sections 16(4) and (5) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution are preempted by federal law, and therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution; (2) whether Colorado should be enjoined from any and all application and implementation of Sections 16(4) and (5) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution; (3) whether Colorado should be enjoined from any and all application and implementation of statutes or regulations promulgated pursuant to Sections 16(4) and (5) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution; and (4) whether Colorado should be ordered to pay the plaintiff states’ costs and expenses associated with this legal action, including attorneys’ fees. CVSG: 12/18/2015.

14-944

Issue(s): Whether, in articulating several specific grounds for vacating an arbitral award in Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, Congress barred courts from vacating arbitral awards on any other ground, including illegality of the underlying contract as construed by the arbitrators.

14-894
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.

Issue(s): Whether the Federal Deposit Insurance Act preempts the application of state interest rate limitations to loans that were underwritten and originated by a state-chartered bank, when a non-bank acquires a predominant economic interest in the loans.

14-857

Issue(s): (1) Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim; (2) whether the answer to the first question is any different when the plaintiff has asserted a class claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but receives an offer of complete relief before any class is certified; and (3) whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity recognized in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., for government contractors is restricted to claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects.

14-819

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with the decisions of this Court, and other courts of appeals, that for purposes of preemption under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), a state law of general applicability only “relates to prices, routes and services” when it “binds the carrier to a particular price, route or service”; and (2) whether California's meal and rest break requirements impermissibly “relate to” motor carriers' prices, routes or services under the FAAAA when they require truck drivers to alter and deviate from their preferred routes and suspend services up to five times a day, every day.

14-801

Issue(s): Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by holding that California's meal and rest break laws are not preempted under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, applying a preemption test that conflicts with the decisions of this Court and other circuits and has consistently produced flawed results.

14-745

Issue(s): (1) Whether courts should defer to published Board of Immigration Appeals case law construing the generic crime of “sexual abuse of a minor” through an ad hoc process that employs a federal civil statute as a “guide”; and (2) whether a state misdemeanor offense for sexual intercourse with an individual under the age of eighteen – which captures activity not criminalized federally or in the vast majority of states, and may be punished with unsupervised probation – is an “aggravated felony” as “sexual abuse of a minor.”

14-419

Issue(s): Whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant's legitimate, untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

 

Relists

14-912

Issue(s): Whether certiorari should be granted to correct the New York Court of Appeals’ unprecedented expansion of Miranda v. Arizona’s automatic exclusionary rule, and the Court of Appeals' fundamental misunderstanding of this Court’s decision in Missouri v. Seibert, as requiring automatic suppression of defendant’s incriminating statement, made only after full advisement and waiver of Miranda warnings, solely because, just prior to the warnings, investigators read defendant a brief, standardized introduction -- which asked no questions and elicited no responses -- and which all parties agreed did not impair the voluntariness of the waiver or statement.

14-941

Issue(s): Whether certiorari should be granted to correct the New York Court of Appeals’ unprecedented expansion of Miranda v. Arizona’s automatic exclusionary rule, and the Court of Appeals' fundamental misunderstanding of this Court’s decision in Missouri v. Seibert, as requiring automatic suppression of defendant’s incriminating statement, made only after full advisement and waiver of Miranda warnings, solely because, just prior to the warnings, investigators read defendant a brief, standardized introduction -- which asked no questions and elicited no responses -- and which all parties agreed did not impair the voluntariness of the waiver or statement.

14-825

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to this Court's decision in Demore v. Kim, that under United States v. Salerno, a denial of bail is permissible “only” after individualized assessments of flight risk or future dangerousness, thereby barring categorical denials of bail such as Arizona's Proposition 100 and calling into question categorical bans on bail in non-capital cases that exist in seventeen other states (and perhaps even calling into question categorical bans on bail in capital cases that exist in an additional twenty-two states); (2) whether, when adopting a categorical ban on bail for illegal aliens charged with serious felonies, a state may rely on logical assumptions, testimonial evidence of front-line prosecutors, and other anecdotal evidence that is in conformity with the empirical evidence of heightened flight risk by those unlawfully present in this country contained in studies conducted elsewhere, similar to what this Court has approved in analogous contexts, see City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., or whether the state must conduct its own empirical analysis that is both jurisdiction- and category-specific in order to meet the requirements of Due Process; and (3) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that Proposition 100 was facially unconstitutional, contrary to Salerno's requirement that a statute is facially invalid only if “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid,” because among those categorically denied bail by Arizona’s Proposition, 100 are individuals charged with capital crimes, whom the Ninth Circuit recognized could categorically be denied bail.

14-704

Issue(s): Whether San Francisco’s attempt to deprive law-abiding individuals of immediate access to operable handguns in their own homes is any more constitutional than the District of Columbia's invalidated effort to do the same.

14-840

Issue(s): Whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reasonably concluded that it has authority under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq., to regulate the rules used by operators of wholesale-electricity markets to pay for reductions in electricity consumption and to recoup those payments through adjustments to wholesale rates. (J. Alito recused.)

14-841

Issue(s): Whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's jurisdiction over interstate markets for wholesale sales of electric energy under sections 201, 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 824(b)(1), 824d and 824e, provides the Commission with authority to regulate participation in those markets by demand response resources.

14-939

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 authorizes the imposition of supervisory liability on state officials for a subordinate’s alleged constitutional violation; and (2) whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that there is a clearly established right under the Eighth Amendment to the “proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols.”

14-631

Issue(s): Whether, when a criminal defendant seeks to vacate a guilty plea on the ground that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance, in order to establish prejudice the defendant must show that but for counsel’s errors he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial (as this Court, all twelve federal circuits, and virtually all the states hold), or whether the defendant must also show that had he gone to trial he would have been acquitted (as the Indiana Supreme Court persists in holding).

 

 

 

Posted in Everything Else

Recommended Citation: Maureen Johnston, Petitions to watch | Conference of May 1, SCOTUSblog (May. 1, 2015, 1:00 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/05/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-may-1/