Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. v. Morgan-Larson, LLC 17-441 Issue: Whether, or in what circumstances, a plaintiff adequately pleads a “continuing violation” of the antitrust laws, sufficient to satisfy the statute of limitations, by alleging continuing sales during the limitations period when the alleged price-fixing conspiracy was formed outside the limitations period.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-441

Issue: Whether, or in what circumstances, a plaintiff adequately pleads a “continuing violation” of the antitrust laws, sufficient to satisfy the statute of limitations, by alleging continuing sales during the limitations period when the alleged price-fixing conspiracy was formed outside the limitations period.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh 17-432 Issue: Whether the rule of American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-432

Issue: Whether the rule of American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Recycle for Change v. City of Oakland, California 17-431 Issue: Whether a regulation is content-based for purposes of the First Amendment when it only applies to unattended receptacles that solicit donations or collections.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-431

Issue: Whether a regulation is content-based for purposes of the First Amendment when it only applies to unattended receptacles that solicit donations or collections.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Dawson v. Steager 17-419 Issue: Whether the Supreme Court’s precedent and the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity bar states from exempting groups of state retirees from state income tax while discriminating against similarly situated federal retirees based on the source of their retirement income.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-419

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court’s precedent and the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity bar states from exempting groups of state retirees from state income tax while discriminating against similarly situated federal retirees based on the source of their retirement income.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions of the day

Petitions of the dayThe petitions of the day are: Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle 17-400 Issues: (1) Whether, when there is no way to tell whether a prior jury found particular facts against a party, due process permits those facts to be conclusively presumed against that party in subsequent litigation; and (2) whether strict-liability and negligence claims based on […]

The post Petitions of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the day

The petitions of the day are:

17-400

Issues: (1) Whether, when there is no way to tell whether a prior jury found particular facts against a party, due process permits those facts to be conclusively presumed against that party in subsequent litigation; and (2) whether strict-liability and negligence claims based on the findings by the class-action jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. are pre-empted by the many federal statutes that manifested Congress’s intent that cigarettes continue to be lawfully sold in the United States.

17-401

Issues: (1) Whether, when there is no way to tell whether a prior jury found particular facts against a party, due process permits those facts to be conclusively presumed against that party in subsequent litigation; and (2) whether strict-liability and negligence claims based on the findings by the class-action jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. are pre-empted by the many federal statutes that manifested Congress’s intent that cigarettes continue to be lawfully sold in the United States.

17-415

Issues: (1) Whether, when there is no way to tell whether a prior jury found particular facts against a party, due process permits those facts to be conclusively presumed against that party in subsequent litigation; and (2) whether, if the Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. jury’s findings are deemed to establish that all cigarettes are inherently defective, claims based on those findings are pre-empted by the many federal statutes that manifest Congress’s intent that cigarettes continue to be lawfully sold in the United States.

The post Petitions of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Turner v. Pidgeon 17-424 Issue: Whether the Supreme Court of Texas correctly decided that Obergefell v. Hodges and Pavan v. Smith “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons,” regardless of whether their marriages are same-sex or opposite sex.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-424

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court of Texas correctly decided that Obergefell v. Hodges and Pavan v. Smith “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons,” regardless of whether their marriages are same-sex or opposite sex.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: New York v. Environmental Protection Agency 17-418 Issues: (1) Whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Transfers Rule conflicts with the plain meaning of the Clear Water Act by concluding that a water transfer’s introduction of pollutants to a navigable water body is not an “addition of any pollutant to navigable waters” […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-418

Issues: (1) Whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Transfers Rule conflicts with the plain meaning of the Clear Water Act by concluding that a water transfer’s introduction of pollutants to a navigable water body is not an “addition of any pollutant to navigable waters” within the meaning of the Act; and (2) whether the EPA may justify the Water Transfers Rule on the basis of perceived costs and benefits caused by the Act’s permitting process, when it expressly declined to conduct any actual assessment of the costs or benefits of permitting.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions to watch | Conference of October 13

Petitions to watch | Conference of October 13In its conference of October 13, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction; […]

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of October 13 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions to watch | Conference of October 13

In its conference of October 13, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction; whether Minnesota statute Section 211B.11, which broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place, is facially overbroad under the First Amendment; and whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising

16-1137

Issue: Whether a legislatively mandated permit condition is subject to scrutiny under the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as set out in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management DistrictDolan v. City of Tigard and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission.

16-1146

Issues: (1) Whether a determination that a law is content-based leaves room for a court to apply something less than strict scrutiny, specifically (a) whether the court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert establishes a bright-line rule for content-based speech, (b) whether content-based, compelled speech is subject to lower scrutiny if it is deemed to be an abortion-related disclosure, and (c) whether the First Amendment permits lower scrutiny for content-based restrictions on professional speech or professional facilities; and (2) whether a law requiring religious non-profits to post a government message antithetical to their beliefs triggers heightened or minimal scrutiny under the free exercise clause.

16-1348

Issue: Whether a defendant who consents to severance of multiple charges into sequential trials loses his right under the double jeopardy clause to the issue-preclusive effect of an acquittal.

17-43

Issue: Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction.

17-193

Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Court’s precedents clearly establish that a prisoner is incompetent to be executed for a murder because he does not remember or acknowledge committing it; and (2) whether the state court was objectively unreasonable in concluding that Madison was competent to be executed.

16-1468

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit exceeded the proper scope of federal habeas review by setting aside a state criminal sentence based on a putative federal due-process right to specific performance of a plea agreement that was superseded and withdrawn, in accordance with state law, before the entry of judgment.

16-1153

Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred, in conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 4th Circuits, in holding that the petitioners can be compelled to advertise free or low-cost abortion services to all clients; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit erred in not applying strict scrutiny to a law that compels speech and is content-based, in conflict with the decisional law of the Supreme Court.

16-1435

Issue: Whether Minnesota statute Section 211B.11, which broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place, is facially overbroad under the First Amendment.

16-1140

Issue: Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.

16-1454
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.

Issue: Whether, under the “rule of reason,” the government’s showing that American Express’ anti-steering provisions stifle price competition on the merchant side of the credit-card platform suffices to prove anti-competitive effects and thereby shifts to American Express the burden of establishing any pro-competitive benefits from the provisions.

16-739

Issues: (1) Whether deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is owed to an interpretation of language prohibiting billboards that display “flashing,” “intermittent” or “moving” lights, contained in agreements between the Federal Highway Administration and individual states, as announced in a guidance memorandum issued by the FHWA on September 25, 2007, or whether deference, if any, is owed under Skidmore v. Swift & Co.; and (2) whether the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which invoked Chevron and approved the FHWA’s interpretation, conflicts with Chevron itself.

16-9604

Issue: Whether Missouri’s second-degree burglary statute is divisible into two offenses with separate elements for the purpose of analyzing whether a conviction under that statute qualifies as a conviction for a “violent felony” as defined in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

16-9448

Issues: (1) Whether, when a Florida jury recommended a death sentence before the Supreme Court decided Hurst v. Florida and none of the findings required by Hurst were made, the error can be deemed harmless under Chapman v. California, or whether the recommendation simply does not amount to the jury verdict the Sixth Amendment requires; and (2) whether the death-sentencing procedures in this case complied with the Eighth Amendment, when the jury was repeatedly advised by the court that its advisory sentencing recommendation was nonbinding.

17-2

Issue: Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider’s control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of October 13 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Robinson v. United States 16-1532 Issue: Whether, or under what circumstances, in a state that permits residents to legally carry firearms while in public, an officer’s belief that a person is armed allows the officers to infer for purposes of a Terry v. Ohio search that the person is “presently dangerous.”

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

16-1532

Issue: Whether, or under what circumstances, in a state that permits residents to legally carry firearms while in public, an officer’s belief that a person is armed allows the officers to infer for purposes of a Terry v. Ohio search that the person is “presently dangerous.”

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren 17-387 Issue: Whether a court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcomes the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-387

Issue: Whether a court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcomes the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com