Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the standard for a plaintiff to meet the plausibility requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, when a trial court should grant the presss motion to access voir dire questionnaires, the proper classification of Voice over Internet Protocol under Brand X, and whether a state violates a biological parents rights under the 14th Amendments due process clause when it strips the parent of custody in favor of a former partner in certain circumstances.
Thepetitions of the week are:
Issues:(1) Whether, in the absence of a Federal Communications Commission decision classifying Voice over Internet Protocol service as an information service, FCC policy can conflict with and pre-empt state regulation of VoIP service; and (2) whether VoIP service is a telecommunications service or an information service, under the appropriate functional test for classification determinations fromBrand X.
Issue: Whether an employee protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act must always allege wage violations averaged across a specific seven-day workweek, or whether an employee may plead a cause of action with alternative context-specific allegations to meet the plausibility requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
Issue: Whether an application to a trial court by the press, as a surrogate for the public, in exercising its constitutionally required ability to be heard in opposition to a denial of the presumptive First Amendment right of access to voir dire questionnaires used to select the jury in a controversial murder prosecution may be denied by the failure of state criminal procedural rules to authorize standing for that purpose.
Issue:Whether a state violates a biological parents rights under the 14th Amendments due process clause when it strips the parent of custody in favor of a former partner who is not the childs biological or adoptive parent, and without affording a presumption that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child.
Posted in Cases in the Pipeline
Cases: Lipschultz v. Charter Advanced Services, LLC, Hirst v. SkyWest Inc., Gatehouse Media New York Holdings Inc. v. New York, F. G. v. R. P.-F.