Petitions of the week
on Mar 13, 2020 at 9:00 am
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the First Amendment and strict scrutiny apply to subject-matter restrictions on ballot initiatives, whether officers can presume that a person is “armed and presently dangerous” simply because the person possesses any amount of marijuana, and whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires administrative exhaustion when a plaintiff brings a non-IDEA claim seeking relief that is not available under the IDEA.
The petitions of the week are below the jump:
Kelsay v. Ernst
Issue: Whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law—even if they use substantial force against nonthreatening suspected misdemeanants who are not fleeing, resisting arrest or posing a safety risk to anyone—so long as no prior case involves a virtually identical fact pattern.
North Carolina v. Courtney
Issue: Whether the mistrial exception to the double jeopardy bar applies when, after a mistrial, the government voluntarily dismisses a criminal charge.
Vugo Inc. v. City of New York, New York
Issue: Whether strict scrutiny review applies in a challenge to government restrictions on commercial speech that do not apply to noncommercial speech.
McCoy v. United States
Issue: Whether officers can presume that a person is “armed and presently dangerous” simply because the person possesses any amount of marijuana, however small.
Valero Energy Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency
Issues: (1) Whether the requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency “shall” make a “calendar year” determination of the “appropriate” point of obligation requires the EPA to consider in each annual rule whether the point of renewable fuel obligation applicable to refineries, blenders, and importers remains appropriate; and (2) whether the EPA can evade the annual duty by partitioning the point of obligation into a one-time collateral proceeding that ignores key evidence, relies primarily on the agency’s own convenience and claims more deference from a reviewing court than an annual rule would receive.
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho
Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state from invalidating an arbitration agreement as substantively unconscionable on the ground that it provides procedural protections akin to civil litigation, rather than to the streamlined administrative proceeding that would be available under state law in the absence of the agreement.
TAMKO Building Products Inc. v. Williams
Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits state courts to craft state principles of agency law that uniquely disfavor arbitration (in the guise of uniquely protecting jury-trial rights) and use those principles to refuse to enforce arbitration agreements.
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
Issue: Whether a government’s post-filing change of an unconstitutional policy moots nominal-damages claims that vindicate the government’s past, completed violation of a plaintiff’s constitutional right.
McMillen v. New Caney Independent School District
Issue: Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires administrative exhaustion when a plaintiff brings a non-IDEA claim seeking relief that is not available under the IDEA.
Schmitt v. LaRose
Issue: Whether the First Amendment and strict scrutiny apply to subject-matter restrictions on ballot initiatives.