Petitions of the week
on Sep 7, 2018 at 3:00 pm
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, Article III standing requirements with regard to individuals whose personal information is held in a database breached by hackers, the effect of the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary-function exception on the act’s law-enforcement proviso, and whether a trial court may deny a criminal defendant’s motion to represent himself based on the defendant’s improper motive or unethical conduct.
The petitions of the week are:
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in concluding—in direct conflict with Virginia’s highest court and other courts—that a decision of the Supreme Court, Montgomery v. Louisiana, addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision, Miller v. Alabama, applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question.
Issue: Whether individuals whose personal information is held in a database breached by hackers have Article III standing simply by virtue of the breach even without concrete injury, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 9th and District of Columbia Circuits have held, or whether concrete injury as a result of the breach is required for Article III standing, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th Circuits have held.
Issue: Whether, and to what extent, the discretionary-function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), restricts the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso, which waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for “[a]ny claim” arising out of an enumerated list of intentional common-law torts committed by federal law-enforcement officers.
Issue: Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred when it held, in conflict with many federal courts of appeals, that a trial court may not deny a criminal defendant’s motion to represent himself based on the “defendant’s improper motive or unethical conduct.”