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 under8 U.S.C. 1231is 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.

Thepetitions of the weekare below the jump:

Olivas-Motta v. Barr
19-282
Issues:(1) Whether an agency exercising its policy-making authority underChevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Councilmay 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
19-487
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
19-569
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 decidedWiggins v. Smith,Rompilla v. BeardandPorter v. McCollumas 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, under18 U.S.C. 3599(f), a reasonable attorney would regard the pursuit of services to investigate a capital defendants mental health as sufficiently important underAyestas v. Davis, when it is plausible that the failure to investigate that aspect of petitioners background on state postconviction review could, given substantial authority recognizing counsels duty to do so, excuse the procedural default of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.

Zadeh v. Robinson
19-676
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Hunter v. Cole
19-753
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
19-797
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 vehicles owner under42 U.S.C. 1983for 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 actors 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.
19-816
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 minors best interests.

Albence v. Arteaga-Martinez
19-896
Issue: Whether an alien who is detained under8 U.S.C. 1231is 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
19-897
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 by8 U.S.C. 1231, or instead by8 U.S.C. 1226.