Petitions of the week
on Feb 20, 2020 at 3:13 pm
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the constitutional right to counsel of choice extends to cases in which a criminal defendant’s assets are frozen as part of a parallel civil enforcement action; whether, under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, virtual contacts can establish specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant; and whether Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes district courts to enter an injunction that orders the return of unlawfully obtained funds.
The petitions of the week are below the jump:
Wade v. Kresiler Law, P.C.
Issue: Whether the “functional equivalence” doctrine applies to nonjurisdictional mandatory claim-processing rules requiring a petition for permission to appeal.
Armstrong v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Issues: (1) Whether the constitutional right to counsel of choice extends to cases in which a criminal defendant’s assets are frozen as part of a parallel civil enforcement action; and (2) whether the failure to return untainted personal property to a defendant violates the constitutional guarantee of due process.
Woodcrest Homes Inc. v. Carousel Farms Metropolitan District
Issue: Whether the Fifth Amendment’s restriction of eminent domain to “public use[s]” is satisfied even if a condemnation is undertaken “for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party.”
Shepherd v. Studdard
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred in finding that a case involving a shooting-through-doorway tactical scenario squarely governed a situation in which deputies faced a knife-wielding suspect on open ground; (2) whether Deputy Kyle Lane’s lack of knowledge created a triable issue of fact as to whether Edmond Studdard was walking; and (3) whether Deputies Erin Shepherd and Terry Reed’s mistaken perception of the distance between themselves and a knife-wielding suspect during a 30-second encounter strips them of qualified immunity.
Wilson v. Cook County, Illinois
Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are “in common use at [this] time” and are not “dangerous and unusual”; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s method of analyzing Second Amendment issues – a three-part test that asks whether (1) a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or (2) those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and (3) whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense – is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Federal Trade Commission v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC
Issue: Whether Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes district courts to enter an injunction that orders the return of unlawfully obtained funds.
K.G.S. v. Facebook Inc.
Issue: Whether, under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, virtual contacts can establish specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under the effects-based test of Calder v. Jones, when the relevant online activity is equally accessible nationwide but its content focuses on the forum state and the tortfeasor has knowingly caused the plaintiff to suffer reputational and emotional harm in the forum state, a question left open by the Supreme Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore.
Joslyn Manufacturing Co. v. Valbruna Slater Steel Corp.
Issue: Whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act’s six-year statute of limitations for “remedial” work is triggered, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held below, only when the construction of a permanent solution for environmental contamination meets a threshold level of comprehensiveness.
CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service
Issue: Whether the Anti-Injunction Act’s bar on lawsuits for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of taxes also bars challenges to unlawful regulatory mandates issued by administrative agencies that are not taxes.
Wood v. Missouri
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.
Issue: Whether the Constitution requires that a jury, rather than a judge, weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine whether a defendant may be sentenced to death.