Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the Department of Veterans Affairs enjoys a presumption in every veterans-benefit case that its medical examiner is competent, and whether, when a jury states that it is unable to agree on a defendants guilt for a greater offense and convicts the defendant of a lesser offense, and the defendant successfully appeals his conviction, the hung-jury rule permits retrial of the greater offense, orGreen v. United Statesbars a retrial.

Thepetitions of the weekare below the jump:

Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico
19-387
Issues: (1) Whether11 U.S.C. 904and48 U.S.C. 2165prohibit a bankruptcy court from enforcing the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code against municipal debtors; and (2) whether11 U.S.C. 922(d)which creates an exception to the automatic stay of debt-enforcement actions during the pendency of a bankruptcy proceeding for the application of pledged special revenuesmandates that there is no automatic stay of debt-enforcement actions with respect to special revenues.

Assured Guaranty Corp. v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico
19-391
Issue:Whether11 U.S.C. 922(d)mandates that there is no automatic stay of debt-enforcement actions with respect to pledged special revenues.

White v. United States
19-587
Issue:Whether, notwithstanding the plain language of Section 3161(h)(7) of theSpeedy Trial Actand the Supreme Courts decision inZedner v. United States, a district court may exclude time pursuant to a stipulation between the parties without making its own on-the-record findings that the ends of justice served by a continuance outweigh the interests of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial.

Francway v. Wilkie
19-604
Issues:(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that the Department of Veterans Affairs enjoys a presumption that its medical examiner is competent in every veterans-benefit case; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in expanding the presumption of competency so that the VA and reviewing courts presume, not only that VA medical examiners are competent, but also that they are specialists in the relevant area of medicine.

Arizona v. Martin
19-605
Issue: Whether, when a jury expressly states it is unable to agree on a defendants guilt for a greater offense and convicts the defendant of a lesser offense, and the defendant successfully appeals his conviction, the hung-jury rule permits retrial of the greater offense orGreen v. United Statesinstead bars retrial of that offense.