This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether a state’s exercise of eminent domain satisfies the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause if the only benefits experienced within that state are incidental; whether the First Amendment protects speech by a public official that is required by law and that reports and exposes corruption; and, in challenges to the minimum-coverage provision in Section 5000A(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, whether the individual and state plaintiffs have established Article III standing, whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum-coverage provision unconstitutional, and, if so, whether the minimum-coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.

The petitions of the week are below the jump:

Puntenney v. Iowa Utilities Board
19-447
Issues: (1) Whether a state’s exercise of eminent domain satisfies the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause if the only benefits experienced within that state are incidental; and (2) whether a state can satisfy the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause merely by labeling the taking with a traditional category of public use, without engaging in the “public purpose” analysis outlined by Kelo v. City of New London.

Jenkins v. Nebraska
19-514
Issues: (1) Whether the sentencing court violated the requirement of the Eighth and 14th Amendments that capital sentencers give meaningful consideration and effect to all mitigating evidence, when it categorically refused to consider the impact of prolonged solitary confinement and the state’s inadequate response, because it concluded that the solitary confinement was warranted; and (2) whether a capital sentencing scheme that requires a jury to find aggravating factors, but authorizes judges, rather than a jury, to make all further factual findings necessary to the imposition of a sentence of death, violates the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

Lambert v. Brown
19-541
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred by failing to address whether a reasonable officer in Detective Michael Lambert’s position would have objectively believed his conduct, in deciding what information to include or not to include in the affidavit, was lawful in light of clearly established law; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit erred by failing to address whether the plaintiffs made a substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth by Lambert.

Michigan v. Beck
19-564
Issue: Whether, when imposing a sentence within the statutory range for the offense of conviction, due process permits a sentencing court to consider conduct underlying an acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

California v. Texas
19-840
Issues: (1) Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum-coverage provision in Section 5000A(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA); (2) whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum-coverage provision unconstitutional; and (3) if so, whether the minimum-coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.

United States House of Representatives v. Texas
19-841
Issues: (1) Whether the individual and state plaintiffs (the respondents here) possess Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 5000A(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA); (2) whether Section 5000A, as amended, exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority; and (3) whether, if Section 5000A is invalid, the provision is severable from the remainder of the act.

Niz-Chavez v. Barr
19-863
Issue: Whether, to serve notice in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve a specific document that includes all the information identified in Section 1229(a), or whether the government can serve that information over the course of as many documents and as much time as it chooses.

Miner v. Picatti
19-868
Issue: Whether a court may decline, in an excessive-force case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to address an argument that, on the facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, officials did not violate the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, based solely on its determination that genuine disputes of fact exist.

Gentile v. Securities and Exchange Commission
19-878
Issue: Whether the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applies to “obey the law” injunctions and penny-stock-industry bars pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1) and (6).

Kaufman County, Texas v. Winzer
19-889
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit panel majority erred in reversing Kaufman County’s summary judgment after concluding that Officer Matthew Hinds did not violate clearly established law; (2) whether the 5th Circuit panel majority improperly retained Kaufman County as a defendant by concluding that Hinds may have violated a constitutional right by evaluating his use of force from the perspective of the respondents; and (3) whether the 5th Circuit panel majority improperly second-guessed the reasonableness of Hinds’ use of force without due regard to the circumstances he encountered.

Waronker v. Hempstead Union Free School District
19-893
Issues: (1) Whether the First Amendment protects speech by a public official that is required by law and that reports and exposes corruption; and (2) whether speech by a public official reporting misconduct to external government officials, outside the chain of command, is protected by the First Amendment, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 9th and 10th Circuits, or whether such speech is unprotected under Garcetti v. Ceballos as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in this case and by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th and District of Columbia Circuits.

Posted in California v. Texas, U.S. House of Representatives v. Texas, Puntenney v. Iowa Utilities Board, Jenkins v. Nebraska, Lambert v. Brown, Michigan v. Beck, Niz-Chavez v. Barr, Miner v. Picatti, Gentile v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Kaufman County, Texas v. Winzer, Waronker v. Hempstead Union Free School District, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Petitions of the week, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 31, 2020, 9:30 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/petitions-of-the-week-82/