Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether a motorists assertion of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to a warrantless blood test may be used as evidence of guilt for the offense of driving under the influence, whether a levy that forces property owners to fund other individuals campaign donations implicates the First Amendments compelled-subsidy doctrine, and whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment.

Thepetitions of the weekare below the jump:

Elster v. City of Seattle, Washington
19-608
Issues: (1) Whether a levy that forces property owners to fund other individuals campaign donations implicates the First Amendments compelled-subsidy doctrine; and (2) whether a compelled subsidy of speech should be examined under rational-basis review, as the decision below concluded, or whether a higher standard of review is appropriate.

Cisco Systems Inc. v. SRI International Inc.
19-619
Issue:Whether patent claims that recite only the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data are patent-ineligible under35 U.S.C. 101andAlice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International.

Bell v. Pennsylvania
19-622
Issue:Whether a motorists assertion of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to a warrantless blood test may be used as evidence of guilt for the offense of driving under the influence.

Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.
19-631
Issue:Whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.

Arizona v. Nunez-Diaz
19-645
Issues: (1) Whether the respondent, Hector Sebastion Nunez-Diaz, is categorically barred from establishing prejudice underStrickland v. Washingtonfor aPadilla v. Kentucky/Lee v. United Statesclaim because, as an unauthorized alien, he is without any legal right to remain in the United States; and (2) whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in findingStricklandprejudice, where inter alia there was no evidence that the respondent had a viable defense either to the criminal charges or deportation.