This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the requirements for a state drug offense to qualify as a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984; the law a court is required to apply when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence in a capital case; and whether, after receiving complete individual relief, a plaintiff retains standing to proceed as an adequate representative of a putative class.

The petitions of the week are:

18-1109

Issues: (1) Whether the Arizona Supreme Court was required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted; and (2) whether the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma requires resentencing.

18-1116

Issue: Whether the three-year limitations period in Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which runs from “the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation,” bars suit when all the relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendants more than three years before the plaintiff filed the complaint, but the plaintiff chose not to read or could not recall having read the information.

18-1125

Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in finding that the deposit of $20,000 with the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67, payment of that amount (plus interest) by check delivered to the plaintiff, and entry of the precise individual injunctive relief requested by the plaintiff left the plaintiff “emptyhanded”; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in finding that even if the plaintiff had received complete individual relief, the plaintiff retained standing to proceed as an adequate representative of the putative class.

18-1131

Issue: Whether a state drug offense must categorically match the elements of a generic analogue offense, including with respect to the mens rea for any potential accomplice liability, in order to qualify as a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii).

* * *

Past cases linked to in this post:

Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982).

 

Posted in McKinney v. Arizona, Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, ZocDoc Inc. v. Geismann, U.S. v. Franklin, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Aurora Barnes, Petitions of the week, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 1, 2019, 10:56 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/petitions-of-the-week-37/