Petitions to watch | Conference of March 17

In its conference of March 17, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the court’s decision in Hall v. Florida must be applied retroactively on collateral review; whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment; and whether refusal to consider the inflationary impact of obsolete testing norms on IQ scores is contrary to or an unreasonable application of Atkins v. Virginia when a state employs a cutoff IQ score of 75 on a single test to preclude Atkins relief.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

16-111

Issue: Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

Payne v. Tennessee

16-395

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: Whether the court’s decision in Hall v. Florida must be applied on collateral review.

Sims v. Tennessee

16-445

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: Whether the court’s decision in Hall v. Florida must be applied retroactively on collateral review.

Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston

16-515

Issue: Whether, when a police officer shoots an unarmed person in the back and the person testifies that he was merely walking away when shot, a court may grant summary judgment to the officer in a suit for excessive force by concluding that it is an “undisputed fact” that the person reached for his waistband just because the officer said he did.

Smith v. Royal

16-7393

Issue: Whether refusal to consider the inflationary impact of obsolete testing norms on IQ scores is contrary to or an unreasonable application of Atkins v. Virginia when a state employs a cutoff IQ score of 75 on a single test to preclude Atkins relief.