This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether a motorist’s 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 Amendment’s compelled-subsidy doctrine, and whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment.

The petitions of the week are 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 Amendment’s 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 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International.

Bell v. Pennsylvania
19-622
Issue: Whether a motorist’s 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 1991’s 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 under Strickland v. Washington for a Padilla v. Kentucky / Lee v. United States claim 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 finding Strickland prejudice, where inter alia there was no evidence that the respondent had a viable defense either to the criminal charges or deportation.

Posted in Elster v. City of Seattle, Washington, Cisco Systems Inc. v. SRI Int'l Inc., Bell v. Pennsylvania, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., Arizona v. Nunez-Diaz, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Petitions of the week, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 19, 2019, 9:13 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/petitions-of-the-week-74/