Petitions to watch | Conference of June 15
on Jun 14, 2017 at 9:50 am
In its conference of June 15, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether private parties can sue to enforce 52 U.S.C. § 10101; whether a prisoner who claims that he was charged with misconduct in retaliation for activity protected by the First Amendment may prevail on his claim when he was found guilty of the misconduct in a constitutionally adequate proceeding; and whether a state court can enforce a rule that Brady v. Maryland does not apply to impeachment evidence when the Supreme Court has held that Brady does apply to impeachment evidence.
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in concluding that the affirmation of a good-faith belief that a given use of material is not authorized “by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,” required under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, may be purely subjective and, therefore, that an unreasonable belief — such as a belief formed without consideration of the statutory fair use factors — will not subject the sender of a takedown notice to liability under Section 512(f) of the DMCA.
Issues: (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin’s redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin’s redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court’s test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
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 private parties can sue to enforce 52 U.S.C. § 10101.
Issue: Whether a prisoner who claims that he was charged with misconduct in retaliation for activity protected by the First Amendment may prevail on his claim when he was found guilty of the misconduct in a constitutionally adequate proceeding.
Issue: Whether a state court can enforce a rule that Brady v. Maryland does not apply to impeachment evidence when the Supreme Court has held that Brady does apply to impeachment evidence.
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit properly held, on its own initiative, that the respondent could overcome his procedural default under Sawyer v. Whitley’s actual-innocence exception; and (2) whether the 6th Circuit properly held that judicial reweighing cannot cure errors at the weighing stage of a capital trial by extending Ring v. Arizona’s standards from the eligibility phase into that weighing phase.
Issues: (1) Whether the district court erred in holding that a lack of discernible standards prevented it from striking down as a partisan gerrymander a districting plan when the plan’s architect freely admitted it was a partisan gerrymander designed to elect as many Republicans as mathematically possible; (2) whether the district court erred in holding that it could not, on the record before it, strike down a districting plan under the 14th Amendment when the plan was designed to secure “partisan advantage” for Republicans; and (3) whether the district court erred in holding that it could not, on the record before it, strike down a districting plan under the First Amendment when the plan was designed to impose burdens on Democratic voters because of their political beliefs. In addition, on May 26, the Supreme Court ordered the parties to brief the following issues: (1) Do the appellants have standing to challenge the remedial map as a partisan gerrymander? (2) Is the district court’s order denying the appellants’ objections to the remedial map appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1253?
Issue: Whether a state violates the 14th Amendment by denying married same-sex couples the same right afforded to married opposite-sex couples under state law to have the name of the birth mother’s spouse entered as the second parent on their child’s birth certificate.
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.
Issue: Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief from the longstanding federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), based on their as-applied Second Amendment claim that their criminal offenses and other particular circumstances do not warrant a firearms disqualification.
Issue: Whether, as used in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(B), the term “punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less” means “capable of being punished by a term of imprisonment of two years or less,” or “subject to a term of imprisonment of two years or less.”
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.
