Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. 16-1011 Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

16-1011

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).

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: Garcia v. Bloomberg 16-1082 Issue: Whether, when officers permit individuals to exercise First Amendment rights to speech and peaceful assembly, officers must provide fair warning prior to arresting demonstrators for participation in the demonstration.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

16-1082

Issue: Whether, when officers permit individuals to exercise First Amendment rights to speech and peaceful assembly, officers must provide fair warning prior to arresting demonstrators for participation in the demonstration.

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: Ultraflo Corp. v. Pelican Tank Parts, Inc. 16-1085 Issue: Whether Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act preempts state-law claims relating to ideas expressed in tangible media.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

16-1085

Issue: Whether Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act preempts state-law claims relating to ideas expressed in tangible media.

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: Caraffa v. Carnival Corp. 16-1074 Issue: Whether, when a Jones Act seafarer alleges negligence based on asbestos exposure, the applicable causation test is the ‘featherweight’ causation standard, or the ‘substantial factor’ causation test as applied in products liability cases.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

16-1074

Issue: Whether, when a Jones Act seafarer alleges negligence based on asbestos exposure, the applicable causation test is the ‘featherweight’ causation standard, or the ‘substantial factor’ causation test as applied in products liability cases.

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: Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization 16-1071 Issue: Whether the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause precludes federal courts from exercising personal jurisdiction in this suit by American victims of terrorist attacks abroad carried out by the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

16-1071

Issue: Whether the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause precludes federal courts from exercising personal jurisdiction in this suit by American victims of terrorist attacks abroad carried out by the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions to watch | Conference of May 11

Petitions to watch | Conference of May 11In its conference of May 11, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law; whether the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a […]

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of May 11 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions to watch | Conference of May 11

In its conference of May 11, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law; whether the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to acquire cell-site location information used to track and reconstruct the location and movements of cell-phone users over extended periods of time; and whether statistical racial disparities in the use of voting mechanisms or procedures are relevant to a vote denial claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

16-111

Issue: Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

16-308

Issue: Whether, or under what circumstances, imposing additional tax beyond the year preceding the legislative session in which the law was enacted violates due process.

16-317

Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit correctly held – contrary to several other courts of appeals – that the presumption against federal pre-emption of state law does not apply in the bankruptcy context; (2) whether the 2nd Circuit correctly held – following the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th, and 8th Circuits, but contrary to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 11th Circuits – that a fraudulent transfer is exempt from avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) when a financial institution acts as a mere conduit for fraudulently transferred property, or whether instead the safe harbor applies only when the financial institution has its own beneficial interest in the transferred property; and (3) whether the 2nd Circuit correctly held – contrary to the Supreme Court’s decisions holding that it is for Congress, and not the courts, to balance the multiple purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, and that courts must therefore rely first and foremost on the text of the code – that 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) is properly construed to extend far beyond its text and impliedly pre-empt fraudulent-transfer actions brought by private parties (as opposed to the “trustee” expressly mentioned in the statute).

16-402

Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell-phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell-phone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

16-687

Issues: (1) Whether the Multistate Tax Compact has the status of a contract that binds its signatory states and requires them to allow taxpayers to elect to use the compact’s equally weighted apportionment formula until the state prospectively withdraws from the compact; (2) whether Michigan’s retroactive repeal of, and withdrawal from, the compact violated the contracts clause; (3) whether Michigan’s retroactive repeal of, and withdrawal from, the compact violated the due process clause; and (4) whether Michigan’s retroactive repeal of, and withdrawal from, the compact violated the commerce clause.

16-688

Issues: (1) Whether a state statute that retroactively imposes over $1 billion in increased tax liability on out-of-state businesses for the benefit of in-state businesses violates the dormant commerce clause; (2) whether a state tax law that has a 6 1/2-year period of retroactivity and targets out-of-state businesses for increased tax liability of over $1 billion violates the due process clause; and (3) whether a state’s retroactive repeal of a central provision of the decades-old Multistate Tax Compact violates the contracts clause by imposing over $1 billion in retroactive tax liability on out-of-state taxpayers.

16-697

Issues: (1) Whether the Multistate Tax Compact has the status of a contract that binds its signatory states; and (2) whether a state law that imposes retroactive tax liability for a period of almost seven years, in a manner that upsets settled expectations and reasonable reliance interests, violates the due process clause.

16-698

Issues: (1) Whether a state, without violating the constitutional bar against the impairment of contracts, can retroactively withdraw from the Multistate Tax Compact so as to divest taxpayers of benefits under that compact for a period of 6 1/2 years before that withdrawal; and (2) whether, consistent with due process, a state can, by statute, change its tax laws retroactively for a period of more than six years, when the change was not promptly instituted and when the change was designed to increase state tax revenues by overriding a Michigan Supreme Court decision determining taxpayer obligations under prior law.

16-699

Issues: (1) Whether the Multistate Tax Compact has the status of a contract that binds its signatory states; and (2) whether a state law that imposes retroactive tax liability for a period of almost seven years, in a manner that upsets settled expectations and reasonable reliance interests, violates the due process clause.

16-736

Issues: (1) Whether the Multistate Tax Compact has the status of a contract that binds its signatory states; and (2) whether a state law that imposes retroactive tax liability for a period of almost seven years, in a manner that upsets settled expectations and reasonable reliance interests, violates the due process clause.

16-833

Issues: (1) Whether a federal court has the authority to re-impose, under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the same “anti-retrogression” preclearance standard invalidated as to Section 5 by Shelby County v. Holder; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that, although the challenged reforms did not adversely affect minority voting, the North Carolina legislature nonetheless intended to deny African Americans the right to vote; and (3) whether statistical racial disparities in the use of voting mechanisms or procedures are relevant to a vote denial claim under Section 2.

16-894

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

16-6308

Issues: (1) Whether the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to acquire cell-site location information used to track and reconstruct the location and movements of cell-phone users over extended periods of time; and (2) whether 18 U.S.C. § 2703, which contains both a provision that requires the government to seek a warrant in order to obtain stored location information from cellular-service providers, as well as a provision allowing law enforcement to obtain this data on less than probable cause, supports application of the good-faith exception to law enforcement’s acquisition of over seven months of cell-site location information without a warrant.

16-6694

Issues: (1) Whether the trial court’s order granting a request by the accused’s codefendant to prohibit the accused from testifying about details that were exculpatory to the accused but prejudicial to his codefendant constituted an impermissible limitation on the accused’s right to testify in his own behalf as set forth in Rock v. Arkansas; and (2) whether the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to acquire cell-site location information used to track and reconstruct the location and movements of cell-phone users over extended periods of time.

16-6761

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should resolve a split of authority among the courts by rejecting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s reasoning in United States v. Caira, which holds that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information held by a third party.

16-7314

Issues: (1) Whether law-enforcement officers must secure a warrant to obtain real-time cellular-phone location data; (2) whether courts must instruct juries on the required unanimity regarding the specific categories of acts in Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act conspiracy cases, and likewise whether the court’s conclusions in Richardson v. United States apply in RICO cases; and (3) whether courts should deliver uniform jury instructions on reasonable doubt and preserve the standard of proof necessary to sustain a criminal conviction.

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of May 11 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Murphy v. Smith 16-1067 Issue: Whether the parenthetical phrase “not to exceed 25 percent,” as used in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), means any amount up to 25 percent (as four circuits hold), or whether it means exactly 25 percent (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit holds).

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

16-1067

Issue: Whether the parenthetical phrase “not to exceed 25 percent,” as used in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), means any amount up to 25 percent (as four circuits hold), or whether it means exactly 25 percent (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit holds).

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: Wilchcombe v. United States 16-1063 Issues: (1) Whether the government violated the petitioners’ Fifth Amendment rights by using their post-arrest, pre-Miranda v. Arizona-warnings silence as substantive evidence of their guilt in the government’s case-in-chief; and (2) whether the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act may constitutionally be applied in a foreign-bounded case […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

16-1063

Issues: (1) Whether the government violated the petitioners’ Fifth Amendment rights by using their post-arrest, pre-Miranda v. Arizona-warnings silence as substantive evidence of their guilt in the government’s case-in-chief; and (2) whether the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act may constitutionally be applied in a foreign-bounded case involving the foreign transport of drugs to foreign shores by foreign residents on a foreign vessel, without a sufficient nexus to the United States.

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: Carvalho v. North Carolina 16-1087 Issues: (1) Whether the burden of proof concerning the reasons for pretrial delay rests (a) with the state, to show that the reasons for delay were justified, as eleven circuits and many state courts of last resort have held; or (b) with the defendant, to show […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

16-1087

Issues: (1) Whether the burden of proof concerning the reasons for pretrial delay rests (a) with the state, to show that the reasons for delay were justified, as eleven circuits and many state courts of last resort have held; or (b) with the defendant, to show that the reasons for delay were unjustified, as the court below held; and (2) whether a defendant who was incarcerated during a nearly-nine-year pretrial delay must also produce “affirmative proof of prejudice” for Barker v. Wingo‘s prejudice factor to weigh in his favor.

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: Mulligan v. Nichols 16-1053 Issues: (1) Whether a judge or jury should decide the fact-intensive question of whether government retaliation is severe enough to deter a person of “ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in conduct that is protected by the First Amendment; and (2) whether a heightened standard of proof […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

16-1053

Issues: (1) Whether a judge or jury should decide the fact-intensive question of whether government retaliation is severe enough to deter a person of “ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in conduct that is protected by the First Amendment; and (2) whether a heightened standard of proof applies when the government retaliates against a citizen through speech, even when the government acts to deter a citizen from petitioning it for a redress of grievances and the individual suffers severe economic injury because of the retaliation.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com