Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that ask the court to decide, among other things, whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, whether and to what extent the manner in which the federal government can execute federal prisoners is governed by state execution protocols and whether statistical surveys may be used to establish commonality and predominance in a class proceeding that involves wage-and-hour claims brought by current and former minor-league baseball players.

The petitions of the week are below the jump:

Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary
19-1328
Issue: Whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Signode Industrial Group LLC v. Stone
19-1334
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit erred by holding – in conflict with decisions reached by at least two other federal courts of appeals and in spite of the Supreme Court’s holdings in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett and CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese that collective bargaining agreements must be interpreted according to generally applicable principles of contract law – that a collective bargaining agreement with an “express statement[] extending benefits beyond the term of agreement” irrefutably confers vested, lifetime benefits, even if the agreement separately reserves for the employer the right to terminate the agreement in its entirety.

National Retirement Fund v. Metz Culinary Management Inc.
19-1336
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.
Issue: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act prohibits multiemployer pension plan actuaries from selecting actuarial assumptions to calculate withdrawal liability after the measurement date – the last day of the plan year immediately prior to the year in which an employer withdrew – even when such assumptions are based on their “best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan” and professional standards governing actuaries.

Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp. v. Senne
19-1339
Issues: (1) Whether Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo sanctions the use of statistical surveys to establish commonality and predominance for a wage-and-hour class that encompasses different kinds of employees performing different kinds of work for different employers at different worksites under different compensation terms; and (2) whether cohesiveness is required for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

Roane v. Barr
19-1348
Issues: (1) Whether the phrase “prescribed by the law of the State” in 18 U.S.C. § 3596(a) includes those procedures that state law requires state officials to establish; (2) whether a court may uphold an agency rule based on an interpretation the agency never advanced when formulating the rule and specifically disclaimed when defending it; and (3) whether a protocol that dictates the manner in which a prisoner will be executed is a “procedural rule” exempt from notice and comment.