Petitions of the week
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” is void for vagueness, whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is entitled, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, and whether the Supreme Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.
The petitions of the week are below the jump:
Olivas-Motta v. Barr
Issues: (1) Whether an agency exercising its policy-making authority under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council may apply a new rule retroactively to a noncitizen who pleaded guilty in reliance on its previous rule; and (2) whether the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” is void for vagueness.
Culp v. Raoul
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires Illinois to allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.
Ayestas v. Davis
Issues: (1) Whether “prevailing professional norms” required counsel in a capital case to investigate potential mitigation evidence, including red flags for mental health and substance abuse, before the Supreme Court decided Wiggins v. Smith, Rompilla v. Beard and Porter v. McCollum—as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 10th Circuits have held, in conflict with the decision below; and (2) whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f), a reasonable attorney would regard the pursuit of services to investigate a capital defendant’s mental health as “sufficiently important” under Ayestas v. Davis, when it is plausible that the failure to investigate that aspect of petitioner’s background on state postconviction review could, given substantial authority recognizing counsel’s duty to do so, excuse the procedural default of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.
Zadeh v. Robinson
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Hunter v. Cole
Issues: Whether, if the barrel of a gun is not yet pointed directly at an officer, clearly established federal law prohibits police officers from firing to stop a person armed with a firearm from moving a deadly weapon toward an officer if the officer has not both shouted a warning and also waited to determine whether the imminent threat to life has subsided after the warning; and (2) whether a police officer who inaccurately reports his perceptions of events during a dynamic shooting encounter violates clearly established rights under the 14th Amendment.
City of St. Louis, Missouri v. Meier
Issues: (1) Whether a municipality, whose officers issued a “wanted” report supported by probable cause to believe that an automobile was an instrumentality or evidence of a crime, resulting in the seizure of an automobile by officers of another jurisdiction, can be held liable for a violation of the Fourth and 14th Amendments, in an action by the vehicle’s owner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for seizure of the automobile; and (2) whether the “rigorous standards” of causation and culpability governing municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 permit such liability against a municipality to be predicated on the conduct of a non-governmental actor in retaining property seized by police, on the basis of the non-governmental actor’s own policy or custom of enforcing “wanted” bulletins from law enforcement agencies, without any other connection with the municipality against which the Section 1983 action is brought.
Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc.
Issues: (1) Whether an abortion clinic may assert third-party standing on behalf of its hypothetical minor patients to challenge a statute requiring parental notice before abortion; and (2) whether Indiana may, consistent with the 14th Amendment, generally require lawyers for unemancipated minors to notify parents of court-authorized abortions, subject to judicial bypass upon a finding that such notice would be against the minor’s best interests.
Albence v. Arteaga-Martinez
Issue: Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
Albence v. Chavez
Issue: Whether the detention of an alien who is subject to a reinstated removal order and who is pursuing withholding or deferral of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231, or instead by 8 U.S.C. § 1226.