In its Conference of June 11, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the constitutionality of the University of Texas at Austin’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process, whether North Carolina’s requirement that an ultrasound image be displayed and described to the patient prior to an abortion procedure violates the First Amendment rights of the provider., and whether Indian tribal courts can adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers.

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.

14-1172

Issue(s): Whether North Carolina's statutory requirement that an ultrasound image be displayed and described to the patient prior to an abortion procedure violates the First Amendment rights of the provider.

14-1122
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): (1) Whether a cartel's delivery of price-fixed goods overseas for incorporation into finished products imported directly to the United States is immune from private suit under U.S. antitrust law; and (2) whether, absent special circumstances, a motions panel may assign itself to decide the merits of a case.

14-1121

Issue(s): (1) Whether a foreign seller's conduct can “involv[e] *** import trade or import commerce” even when the seller himself does not import any goods into the United States; (2) whether a foreign price-fixing agreement can have an effect on U.S. commerce that is “direct” and “gives rise to” a Sherman Act claim even when the agreement fixes prices only in foreign sales; and (3) whether foreign price-fixing agreements should be condemned as per se unlawful, instead of evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the rule of reason.

14-1006

Issue(s): Whether restitution imposed on a criminal defendant is a criminal penalty subject to the requirement under the Sixth Amendment that the government allege in the indictment and prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases the amount of criminal sentences, penalties, and punishments.

 

Relists

14-395

Issue(s): Whether the Fourth Circuit contravened 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) when it granted habeas relief on the ground that the North Carolina state courts unreasonably applied "clearly established" law when they held that third-party religious discussions with jurors did not concern "the matter[s] pending before the jury."

14-807

Issue(s): (1) Whether the state courts were objectively unreasonable when they held that DeBruce failed to establish that his counsel performed deficiently at the penalty phase of his trial; and (2) whether the state courts were objectively unreasonable when they held that DeBruce had not been prejudiced by his counsel’s performance.

14-981

Issue(s): Whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

14-997

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires Mississippi to exempt physicians at the State’s only abortion clinic from complying with a medically legitimate health and safety regulation that applies to physicians at all other outpatient surgical facilities; and (2) whether Mississippi House Bill 1390, which requires that abortion physicians have admitting privileges at a local hospital to handle complications that require emergency hospitalization, imposes an undue burden under Planned Parenthood v. Casey regardless of the geographical availability of abortion services in adjoining states in light of the equal protection principle articulated in Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada.

 

CVSGs

13-1496
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case.

Issue(s): Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members. CVSG: 5/12/2015.

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: John Ehrett, Petitions to watch | Conference of June 11, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 9, 2015, 8:00 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-june-11/