Petitions of the week

Petitions of the weekThis week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether depriving a criminal defendant of trial counsel against his will violates the Sixth Amendment and a jailer’s liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for detaining a person for an extended period without providing a hearing for arraignment and bail review. The petitions of the […]

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether depriving a criminal defendant of trial counsel against his will violates the Sixth Amendment and a jailer’s liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for detaining a person for an extended period without providing a hearing for arraignment and bail review.

The petitions of the week are:

18-689

Issue: Whether, when a jailer detains a person for an extended period with no access to a court hearing for arraignment and bail review, in violation of his or her due process rights, the jailer can avoid liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that the state court caused the violation because it bears sole responsibility for setting such a hearing.

18-697
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 depriving a criminal defendant of trial counsel against his will, without at least the warnings and voluntary waiver required by Faretta v. California, violates the Sixth Amendment.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions of the week

Petitions of the weekThis week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether depriving a criminal defendant of trial counsel against his will violates the Sixth Amendment and a jailer’s liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for detaining a person for an extended period without providing a hearing for arraignment and bail review. The petitions of the […]

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether depriving a criminal defendant of trial counsel against his will violates the Sixth Amendment and a jailer’s liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for detaining a person for an extended period without providing a hearing for arraignment and bail review.

The petitions of the week are:

18-689

Issue: Whether, when a jailer detains a person for an extended period with no access to a court hearing for arraignment and bail review, in violation of his or her due process rights, the jailer can avoid liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that the state court caused the violation because it bears sole responsibility for setting such a hearing.

18-697
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 depriving a criminal defendant of trial counsel against his will, without at least the warnings and voluntary waiver required by Faretta v. California, violates the Sixth Amendment.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from https://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions of the week

Petitions of the weekThis week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, when an “offer[] to sell” under the Patent Act occurs, the scope of the review Strickland v. Washington requires to determine whether an error rendered counsel’s representation constitutionally deficient, the validity of a foreclosure sale that violated 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3), and the scope […]

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, when an “offer[] to sell” under the Patent Act occurs, the scope of the review Strickland v. Washington requires to determine whether an error rendered counsel’s representation constitutionally deficient, the validity of a foreclosure sale that violated 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3), and the scope of a federal court’s jurisdiction when determining whether resolution of a state-law claim would involve a collective bargaining agreement and thus trigger pre-emption.

The petitions of the week are:

18-185

Issue: Whether, under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington, a court must evaluate counsel’s overall performance in determining whether a single error is sufficiently egregious to render counsel’s representation constitutionally deficient.

18-579

Issue: Whether federal courts lack authority to inquire into the nature and scope of an alleged state-law claim in determining whether resolution of that claim would involve interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement and thus trigger pre-emption.

18-600

Issue: Whether, under the Patent Act, an “offer[] to sell” occurs when the offer is actually made or when the offer contemplates that the proposed sale will take place.

18-670
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.

Issues: (1) Whether 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) applies to foreclosures of properties for which the Federal Housing Finance Authority holds a securitized mortgage solely as trustee for the security holders; and (2) whether a foreclosure sale in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) is void in its entirety, such that an unknowing purchaser can seek to unwind the deal, or whether the statute only prevents extinguishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s liens.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions of the week

Petitions of the weekThis week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the constitutional adequacy of the “aggravating circumstances” used by a state to sentence a person to death, the scope of a defendant’s Sixth and 14th Amendment right to conflict-free counsel, and whether the use of a name is a “means of […]

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the constitutional adequacy of the “aggravating circumstances” used by a state to sentence a person to death, the scope of a defendant’s Sixth and 14th Amendment right to conflict-free counsel, and whether the use of a name is a “means of identification of another person” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.

The petitions of the week are:

18-640

Issue: Whether a criminal defendant is deprived of his Sixth and 14th Amendment right to conflict-free counsel when his lawyer is paid by a third party; the third party threatens to withhold payment unless the lawyer conducts the defense in a manner that serves the third party’s interests; the lawyer does not inform his client or the court of the conflict; and the lawyer in fact conducts the defense in a manner that serves the third-party payer’s interests and sacrifices the client’s interests.

18-679

Issues: (1) Whether certain of the “aggravating circumstances” used by Idaho to determine whether a defendant may be sentenced to death—those that ask whether the crime was especially “heinous, atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity”; whether the defendant exhibited “utter disregard for human life”; and whether the defendant “has exhibited a propensity to commit murder”—fail to provide sentencing juries with constitutionally adequate guidance; and (2) whether Idaho’s felony-murder aggravating circumstance, which substantially duplicates Idaho’s felony-murder statute, violates the constitutional requirement that Idaho sufficiently narrow the class of persons subject to the death penalty.

18-682

Issue: Whether the use of a name, without more, constitutes the use of a “means of identification of another person” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions of the week

Petitions of the weekThis week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, when an “offer[] to sell” occurs under the Patent Act, the constitutionality of a court-martial of a retired military service member, and the correct legal standard for determining whether a lien is a “statutory lien” under the Bankruptcy Code. The petitions of the week […]

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, when an “offer[] to sell” occurs under the Patent Act, the constitutionality of a court-martial of a retired military service member, and the correct legal standard for determining whether a lien is a “statutory lien” under the Bankruptcy Code.

The petitions of the week are:

18-306

Issues: (1) Whether the Constitution permits the court-martial of a retired military service member; and (2) whether, if so, the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of courts-martial in such cases to offenses that are related to the retiree’s military status.

18-307

Issues: (1) Whether Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act violates the Constitution’s separation of powers by creating the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection as an independent agency that exercises expansive executive authority over private citizens but is led by a single director that the president cannot remove from office for policy reasons, is exempted from Congress’ power of the purse and accompanying congressional oversight, and has no internal checks or balances (such as those afforded by a deliberate multi-member commission structure) to mitigate this lack of accountability and restraint; (2) whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overturned; and (3) whether the appropriations clause, in conjunction with the Constitution’s separation of powers, permits Congress to create perpetual, on-demand funding streams for executive agencies that are unreviewably drawn from the coffers of other independent agencies.

18-560

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should resolve a conflict among the courts of appeals over the correct legal standard for determining whether a lien is a “statutory lien” under the Bankruptcy Code.

18-600

Issue: Whether, under the Patent Act, an “offer[] to sell” occurs when the offer is actually made or when the offer contemplates that the proposed sale will take place.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions of the week

Petitions of the weekThis week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the applicability of the “commercial activity” exception to sovereign immunity in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to certain suits; whether the establishment clause precludes courts from considering relevant, admissible secular evidence in ordinary trust and property disputes because the litigants […]

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the applicability of the “commercial activity” exception to sovereign immunity in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to certain suits; whether the establishment clause precludes courts from considering relevant, admissible secular evidence in ordinary trust and property disputes because the litigants are religious parties; and the jurisdiction of federal courts pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act in a suit seeking relief for the violation of a collective-bargaining agreement.

The petitions of the week are:

18-530

Issues: (1) Whether, in ordinary trust and property disputes, the establishment clause precludes courts from considering secular evidence that is relevant and admissible under governing state law merely because the litigants are religious parties; (2) whether, in ordinary trust and property disputes, excluding secular evidence that is relevant and admissible under state law merely because the litigants are religious parties violates the free exercise clause by treating religious parties differently from—and, here, less favorably than—secular parties; and (3) whether, in ordinary trust and property disputes, federal courts sitting in diversity may disregard governing state substantive law and fashion federal common law merely because the litigants are religious parties.

18-580

Issue: Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), over a complaint for intentional and negligent misrepresentation and declaratory relief, when the lawsuit seeks relief from claims that the plaintiff violated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.

18-575

Issue: Whether the “commercial activity” exception to sovereign immunity in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), is inapplicable to suits challenging conduct inexplicably intertwined with a sovereign act of expropriation.

18-581

Issue: Whether the “commercial activity” exception to sovereign immunity in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), is inapplicable to suits challenging conduct inextricably intertwined with a sovereign act of expropriation.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions of the week

Petitions of the weekThis week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the reasonableness of an officer’s suspicion that the registered owner of a vehicle is the person driving the vehicle, a public school’s interest in authorizing students “who believe themselves to be members of the opposite sex” to use locker rooms and […]

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the reasonableness of an officer’s suspicion that the registered owner of a vehicle is the person driving the vehicle, a public school’s interest in authorizing students “who believe themselves to be members of the opposite sex” to use locker rooms and restrooms reserved exclusively for the opposite sex, and whether a federal court should abstain from resolving a request to compel arbitration when a state court has already ruled on that request.

The petitions of the week are:

18-556

Issue: Whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary.

18-572

Issues: (1) Whether a party opposing arbitration on the ground of waiver by litigation conduct must prove that it was prejudiced by the other party’s waiver; and (2) whether a federal court should abstain from resolving a request to compel arbitration when a state court has already ruled on that request.

18-658

Issues: (1) Whether, given students’ constitutionally protected privacy interest in their partially clothed bodies, a public school has a compelling interest in authorizing students who believe themselves to be members of the opposite sex to use locker rooms and restrooms reserved exclusively for the opposite sex, and whether such a policy is narrowly tailored; and (2) whether the Boyertown policy constructively denies access to locker room and restroom facilities under Title IX “on the basis of sex,” 20 U.S.C. § 1681.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Categories: Uncategorized

Petitions of the week

Petitions of the weekThis week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the classification of Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement as a jurisdictional prerequisite or a waivable claim-processing rule; the meaning of the statutory term “confidential” in the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4; the derivation of the religious-autonomy doctrine; and whether a state can […]

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the classification of Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement as a jurisdictional prerequisite or a waivable claim-processing rule; the meaning of the statutory term “confidential” in the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4; the derivation of the religious-autonomy doctrine; and whether a state can require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains.

The petitions of the week are:

18-481
Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this case.

Issues: (1) Whether the statutory term “confidential” in the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4 bears its ordinary meaning, thus requiring the government to withhold all “commercial or financial information” that is confidentially held and not publicly disseminated—regardless of whether a party establishes substantial competitive harm from disclosure—which would resolve at least five circuit splits; and (2) whether, in the alternative, if the Supreme Court retains the substantial-competitive-harm test, that test is satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st and 10th Circuits have held, or whether the party opposing disclosure must establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th and District of Columbia Circuits have held, and as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit required here.

18-483

Issues: (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.

18-500

Issues: (1) Whether the religious-autonomy doctrine derives from the First Amendment or rather is a consent-based doctrine applicable only to disputes between a church and one of its own members; and (2) whether the religious-autonomy doctrine is a threshold jurisdictional issue or an affirmative defense.

18-525

Issue: Whether Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit, as three circuits have held, or a waivable claim-processing rule, as eight circuits have held.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions of the week

Petitions of the weekThis week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the meaning of the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” in District of Columbia v. Heller when determining whether a felon is entitled to lodge an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of a felon disarmament law, whether a state law regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates […]

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the meaning of the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” in District of Columbia v. Heller when determining whether a felon is entitled to lodge an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of a felon disarmament law, whether a state law regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the proper standard of review for a lower court’s determination that a required party is dispensable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and the effect of the commerce clause on a state’s ability to protect consumer access to prescription drugs by regulating the pricing of those drugs.

The petitions of the week are:

18-528

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred when it applied an “abuse of discretion” standard of review to a district court’s determination that a required party is dispensable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and, if so, which standard of review is applicable to a lower court’s determination that a required party is dispensable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.

18-540

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas’ statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of states, is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s precedent that ERISA does not pre-empt rate regulation.

18-546

Issue: Whether the commerce clause prohibits a state from protecting consumer access to essential off-patent and generic prescription drugs by requiring manufacturers to refrain from unconscionably raising the price of those drugs sold in the state.

18-496
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.

Issues: In determining whether a felon is entitled to lodge an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of a felon disarmament law such as 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), (1) what does the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” in District of Columbia v. Heller mean; and (2) what does it mean that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” are “presumptively lawful regulatory measures” under Heller.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions of the week

Petitions of the weekThis week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether plaintiffs may obtain certification of issue classes for a cause of action under Rule 23(c)(4) without having demonstrated that common issues predominate under Rule 23(b)(3), the creation of a particular inferred private right of action via Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange […]

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether plaintiffs may obtain certification of issue classes for a cause of action under Rule 23(c)(4) without having demonstrated that common issues predominate under Rule 23(b)(3), the creation of a particular inferred private right of action via Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the constitutionality of the subsection-specific definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B).

The petitions of the week are:

18-459

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit correctly held, in express disagreement with five other courts of appeals, that Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 supports an inferred private right of action based on the negligent misstatement or omission made in connection with a tender offer.

18-472

Issue: Whether plaintiffs, having failed to demonstrate that common issues predominate over individual issues as to their cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), may nevertheless obtain certification of issue classes for that cause of action under Rule 23(c)(4).

18-428

Issue: Whether the subsection-specific definition of ”crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime, is unconstitutionally vague.

18-431

Issue: Whether the subsection-specific definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime, is unconstitutionally vague.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com