Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: United States v. Jackson 17-651 Issue: Whether the definition of the term “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-651

Issue: Whether the definition of the term “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.

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: Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. Department of Homeland Security 17-618 Issues: (1) Whether, under the Equal Access to Justice Act, prevailing party status on appeal is separate and distinct from prevailing party status in the entire litigation; (2) whether separate claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking the identical […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-618

Issues: (1) Whether, under the Equal Access to Justice Act, prevailing party status on appeal is separate and distinct from prevailing party status in the entire litigation; (2) whether separate claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking the identical remedy are distinct in all respects for fee purposes; and (3) whether a district court may raise objections to a fee request sua sponte, without giving the party making the request an opportunity to respond.

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: S. A. B. v. Sessions 17-616 Issues: (1) Whether a court of appeals may rely on extra-record factual research to decide a petition for review of a removal order despite a statutory command that such a petition be decided “only on the administrative record,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); and (2) whether […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-616

Issues: (1) Whether a court of appeals may rely on extra-record factual research to decide a petition for review of a removal order despite a statutory command that such a petition be decided “only on the administrative record,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); and (2) whether federal court authority to decide constitutional claims and questions of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) permits review of legal error in exemption determinations under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(B)(i).

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: Medrano-Arzate v. May 17-601 Issue: Whether a plaintiff can state a cognizable claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of a citizen’s substantive due process rights without alleging that the employee who carried out the municipal policy also acted with a constitutionally culpable state of mind.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-601

Issue: Whether a plaintiff can state a cognizable claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of a citizen’s substantive due process rights without alleging that the employee who carried out the municipal policy also acted with a constitutionally culpable state of mind.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions to watch | Conference of November 21

Petitions to watch | Conference of November 21In its conference of November 21, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs and, if so, whether the plenary power expands the Indian commerce clause to authorize the displacement of state rights to territorial integrity; and whether, given the petitioner’s credible evidence that a juror […]

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of November 21 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions to watch | Conference of November 21

In its conference of November 21, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs and, if so, whether the plenary power expands the Indian commerce clause to authorize the displacement of state rights to territorial integrity; and whether, given the petitioner’s credible evidence that a juror voted for the death penalty because the petitioner is a “nigger,” the lower court erred in ruling that he failed to make “a substantial showing of the of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

16-9304

Issue: Whether, when the Alabama Supreme Court failed to apply the reasoning and analysis mandated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Foster v. Chatman, the U.S. Supreme Court should intervene to enforce its precedents following Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibit discrimination in jury selection on the basis of race or gender.

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).

17-6075

Issues: (1) Whether reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court’s rejection of the petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion, and, accordingly, whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in denying a certificate of appealability; (2) whether, given the petitioner’s credible evidence that a juror voted for the death penalty because the petitioner is a “nigger,” the lower court erred in ruling that he failed to make “a substantial showing of the of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and (3) whether Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado created a new constitutional claim, and, if not, whether the lower courts erred in denying the petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).

17-8

Issues: (1) Whether a tribe that opted out of the Indian Reorganization Act can revive its status under that Act through the Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2202, even though the United States did not hold land in a trust for that tribe at the time the tribe sought a land-in-trust acquisition; (2) whether the land-in-trust provision of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5108, exceeds Congress’ authority under the Indian commerce clause, Art. I § 8, cl. 3; (3) whether 25 U.S.C. § 5108’s standardless delegation of authority to acquire land “for Indians” is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power; and (4) whether the federal government’s control over state land must be categorically exclusive for the enclave clause, Art. I § 8, cl. 17, to prohibit the removal of that land from state jurisdiction.

16-1320

Issues: (1) Whether, in the exercise of its Article I powers, Congress can infringe, reduce or diminish the territorial integrity of a state without its prior consent; (2) whether Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs and, if so, whether the plenary power expands the Indian commerce clause to authorize the displacement of state rights to territorial integrity; (3) whether the land acquisition in this case via the mechanism of 25 U.S.C. § 465 (now 25 U.S.C. § 5108) represents a violation of the limits inherently expressed in the Indian commerce clause that limits Congress’ power to “regulate” “commerce”; and (4) whether the 300,000-acre ancient Oneida Indian reservation in New York still exists.

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of November 21 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Labor and Industry Review Commission of Wisconsin v. Coleman 17-579 Issue: Whether a magistrate judge has the authority to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s frivolous or meritless lawsuit when the plaintiff has consented to the magistrate’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), but the defendant has not yet been served.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-579

Issue: Whether a magistrate judge has the authority to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s frivolous or meritless lawsuit when the plaintiff has consented to the magistrate’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), but the defendant has not yet been served.

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: Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com 17-571 Issue: Whether the “registration of [a] copyright claim has been made” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, deposit, and fee to the Copyright Office, as the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 5th […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-571

Issue: Whether the “registration of [a] copyright claim has been made” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, deposit, and fee to the Copyright Office, as the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 5th and 9th Circuits have held, or only once the Copyright Office acts on that application, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th and, in the decision below, the 11th Circuits have held.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Status Quo Watch

Status Quo WatchJohn Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. Monday’s order list was a fitting one as the nation approaches the Thanksgiving holiday: It began with a flurry of excitement, followed by torpor. The excitement came, of course, from the fact that the court granted review in three relisted cases, all of them raising interesting First Amendment questions: four-time […]

The post Status Quo Watch appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Status Quo Watch

John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists.

Monday’s order list was a fitting one as the nation approaches the Thanksgiving holiday: It began with a flurry of excitement, followed by torpor.

The excitement came, of course, from the fact that the court granted review in three relisted cases, all of them raising interesting First Amendment questions: four-time relist National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 16-1140 (presenting a challenge to a California law requiring crisis-pregnancy centers to provide visitors with certain notices); four-time relist Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 16-1435 (involving a challenge to a Minnesota law banning political apparel at polling places); and one-time relist Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 17-21 (concerning whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law). There was excitement of a different kind in three-time relist Reeves v. Alabama, 16-9282, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan) dissented from denial of cert in a case involving whether a prisoner can make an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when trial counsel does not testify about his or her strategic decisions. With two cases related to National Institute of Family and Life Advocates now being held (A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Becerra, 16-1146, and Livingwell Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Becerra, 16-1153), the relist rolls have been trimmed by six cases.

But now things are slowing down. We’ve handchecked the entire docket and there are no new relists going in to Thanksgiving week.  So good news, everybody – we can use this coming week to do just what we ought to be doing this time of year: come together with our families and face the soul-crushing emptiness of our lives.

But seriously: Happy Thanksgiving to (both of) our readers!  Safe travels!

I am thankful for the help of Kevin Brooks and Kent Piacenti in compiling the cases in this post.

========================================================

New Relists

What – you didn’t read the post?  There are no new relists.

 

Returning Relists

Sykes v. United States, 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).

(relisted after the October 6, October 13, October 27, November 3 and November 9 conferences)

 

Tharpe v. Sellers17-6075

Issues: (1) Whether reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court’s rejection of the petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion, and, accordingly, whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in denying a certificate of appealability; (2) whether, given the petitioner’s credible evidence that a juror voted for the death penalty because the petitioner is a “nigger,” the lower court erred in ruling that he failed to make “a substantial showing of the of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and (3) whether Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado created a new constitutional claim, and, if not, whether the lower courts erred in denying the petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).

(relisted after the October 6, October 13, October 27, November 3 and November 9 conferences)

 

Floyd v. Alabama, 16-9304

Issue: Whether, when the Alabama Supreme Court failed to apply the reasoning and analysis mandated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Foster v. Chatman, the U.S. Supreme Court should intervene to enforce its precedents following Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibit discrimination in jury selection on the basis of race or gender.

(relisted after the October 27, November 3 and November 9 conferences)

 

Upstate Citizens for Equality v. United States, 16-1320

Issues: (1) Whether Congress in the exercise of its Article I powers can infringe, reduce or diminish the territorial integrity of a state without its prior consent; (2) whether Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs and if so whether the Indian commerce clause authorizes the displacement of state rights to territorial integrity; (3) whether the land acquisition in this case via the mechanism of 25 U.S.C. § 465 (now 25 U.S.C. § 5108) represents a violation of the limits inherently expressed in the Indian commerce clause that limits Congress’ power to “regulate” “commerce”; and (4) whether the 300,000-acre ancient Oneida Indian reservation in New York still exists.

(relisted after the November 3 and November 9 conferences)

 

Town of Vernon, New York v. United States, 17-8

Issues: (1) Whether a tribe that opted out of the Indian Reorganization Act can have its status under the Act revived under the Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2202, even though the United States did not hold land in trust for that tribe at the time the tribe sought a land-in-trust acquisition; (2) whether the land-in-trust provision of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5108, exceeds Congress’ authority under the Indian commerce clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3; (3) whether § 5108’s standardless delegation of authority to acquire land “for Indians” is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power; and (4) whether the federal government’s control over state land must be categorically exclusive for the enclave clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, to prohibit the removal of that land from state jurisdiction.

(relisted after the November 3 and November 9 conferences)

The post Status Quo Watch appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Silver v. United States 17-562 Issues: (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1957 requires the government to trace funds in a transaction involving a withdrawal from a commingled account, precluding a conviction where the account contains sufficient clean funds to cover the transfer; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-562

Issues: (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1957 requires the government to trace funds in a transaction involving a withdrawal from a commingled account, precluding a conviction where the account contains sufficient clean funds to cover the transfer; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit contravened the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sekhar v. United States and Skilling v. United States by finding sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s convictions for extortion and honest services fraud.

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: State of Alaska v. Ross 17-118 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, when the government determines that a species that […]

The post Petitions of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the day

The petitions of the day are:

17-118
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, when the government determines that a species that is not presently endangered will lose its habitat due to climate change by the end of the century, the National Marine Fisheries Service may list that species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

17-133

Issue: Whether, when the government determines that a species that is not presently endangered will lose its habitat due to climate change by the end of the century, the National Marine Fisheries Services may list that species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The post Petitions of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com