This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that involve, among other things, the test that determines whether someone is “intellectually disabled” for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, whether the prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause when it uses a criminal defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda-warning silence as evidence of guilt in its case-in-chief, and whether Medicaid recipients have a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23) to challenge a state’s determination that a specific provider is not qualified to provide certain medical services.

The petitions of the week are below the jump:

Baker v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
19-1186
Issues: (1) Whether Medicaid recipients have a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23) to challenge a state’s determination that a specific provider is not qualified to provide certain medical services; and (2) what framework properly decides whether a statute creates a private right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
19-1189
Issue: Whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.

Ohio v. Ford
19-1191
Issue: What test determines whether someone is “intellectually disabled” for purposes of the Eighth Amendment.

Kuang v. Department of Defense
19-1194
Issues: (1) Whether courts can evade their constitutional and statutory duty to review military decisions under the so-called “Mindes test,” from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision in Mindes v. Seamen, or whether claims seeking injunctive relief against the military are reviewable so long as they do not present a nonjusticiable political question or otherwise fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; and (2) whether a Department of Defense policy that requires all legal permanent resident enlistees—but not their U.S.- citizen counterparts—to suffer unjustified delays before beginning their military careers is judicially reviewable.

Palacios-Solis v. United States
19-1195
Issue: Whether the prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause when it uses a criminal defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda-warning silence as evidence of guilt in its case-in-chief.

Posted in Baker v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Ohio v. Ford, Kuang v. Department of Defense, Palacios-Solis v. U.S., Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Petitions of the week, SCOTUSblog (May. 5, 2020, 2:50 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/petitions-of-the-week-94/