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 defendant’s 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, or Green v. United States bars a retrial.

The petitions of the week are below the jump:

Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico

19-387

Issues: (1) Whether 11 U.S.C. § 904 and 48 U.S.C. § 2165 prohibit a bankruptcy court from enforcing the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code against municipal debtors; and (2) whether 11 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 revenues”—mandates 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: Whether 11 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 the Speedy Trial Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Zedner 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 defendant’s 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 or Green v. United States instead bars retrial of that offense.