Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Vazquez v. Sessions 17-1304 Issue: Whether a conviction under a state criminal statute whose plain terms sweep in more conduct than a corresponding federal offense can be a categorical match with that federal offense.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1304

Issue: Whether a conviction under a state criminal statute whose plain terms sweep in more conduct than a corresponding federal offense can be a categorical match with that federal offense.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions to watch | Conference of April 20

Petitions to watch | Conference of April 20In its conference of April 20, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the Eighth Amendment requires an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state’s proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition; whether the Supreme Court […]

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of April 20 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions to watch | Conference of April 20

In its conference of April 20, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the Eighth Amendment requires an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state’s proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition; whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause; and whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.

17-5684

Issues: (1) Whether the petitioner’s mandatory guidelines sentence, which was enhanced under the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, and, if so, whether a conviction for burglary of a dwelling under Florida law qualifies as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s elements clause; and (2) whether published orders issued by a circuit court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), and in the context of applications to file second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, constitute binding precedent outside of that context.

17-654

Issue: Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., the Supreme Court should vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s judgment and instruct that court to remand the case to the district court with directions to dismiss all claims for prospective relief regarding pregnant unaccompanied minors.

17-8151

Issues: (1) Whether a court evaluating an as-applied challenge to a state’s method of execution based on an inmate’s rare and severe medical condition should assume that medical personnel are competent to manage his condition and that procedure will go as intended; (2) whether evidence comparing a state’s method of execution with an alternative proposed by an inmate must be offered via a single witness, or whether a court at summary judgment must look to the record as a whole to determine whether a factfinder could conclude that the two methods significantly differ in the risks they pose to the inmate; and (3) whether the Eighth Amendment requires an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state’s proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition.

17-7177

Issue: Whether, when a criminal defendant has already been convicted of an offense in a state criminal proceeding, the United States may thereafter prosecute the defendant for the same offense without violating the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on double jeopardy.

17-7245

Issue: Whether the death penalty, in and of itself, violates the Eighth Amendment in light of contemporary standards of decency and the geographic arbitrariness of its imposition.

17-961

Issue: Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”

17-646

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.

17-6262

Issue: Whether, under the Supreme Court’s opinions in United States v. BookerJohnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended heavily upon the distinction between advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes, the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague.

17-6769

Issue: Whether, under the Supreme Court’s opinions in United States v. BookerJohnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended heavily upon the distinction between advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes, the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague.

17-988

Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.

17-5503

Issues: (1) Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from charging, convicting and sentencing a person who has already been charged, convicted and sentenced in the court of a state for much of the same conduct; and (2) whether the seriousness of the offense conduct is an appropriate consideration for a district court when fashioning a sentence on revocation of supervised release.

17-6877

Issue: Whether, following Johnson v. United States, in which the Supreme Court invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, identical language in the residual clause of the previously-mandatory sentencing guidelines is likewise unconstitutional.

17-742

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s holding—granting qualified immunity to law-enforcement officers who stopped the petitioner from praying silently in her own home because there was no prior case law involving similar facts—conflicts with Hope v. Pelzer, which “expressly rejected a requirement that previous cases be ‘fundamentally similar’” or involve “‘materially similar’ facts.”

17-7517

Issue: Whether the statement of general principle that a burglary of a vehicle is not generic burglary within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act because vehicles are not buildings allows generic burglary status when the vehicle is a dwelling place.

17-6883

Issue: Whether—when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found that the new mitigating evidence discovered on federal habeas review was “double-edged” and could not outweigh the substantial aggravating evidence, and when it misapplied the standard for evaluating prejudice in a Wiggins claim—it denied the petitioner due process.

17-5410

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.

17-766

Issue: Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

17-765

Issue: Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

 

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of April 20 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions of the day

Petitions of the dayThe petition of the days are: Apodaca v. Raemisch 17-1284 Issue: Whether clearly established Eighth Amendment law permits prison officials to permanently deprive a prisoner in solitary confinement of outdoor exercise without a security rationale. Lowe v. Raemisch 17-1289 Issue: Whether clearly established Eighth Amendment law permits prison officials to permanently deprive a prisoner in solitary confinement of […]

The post Petitions of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions of the day

The petition of the days are:

17-1284

Issue: Whether clearly established Eighth Amendment law permits prison officials to permanently deprive a prisoner in solitary confinement of outdoor exercise without a security rationale.

17-1289

Issue: Whether clearly established Eighth Amendment law permits prison officials to permanently deprive a prisoner in solitary confinement of outdoor exercise without a security rationale.

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: Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. 17-1272 Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to decline to enforce an agreement delegating questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator if the court concludes the claim of arbitrability is “wholly groundless.”

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1272

Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to decline to enforce an agreement delegating questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator if the court concludes the claim of arbitrability is “wholly groundless.”

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: Casey v. United States 17-1251 Issue: Whether a court may grant a federal habeas petition collaterally challenging a sentence under Johnson v. United States, which held that a sentence enhanced under the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act violated the Due Process Clause, when the sentencing judge never specified—and therefore […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1251

Issue: Whether a court may grant a federal habeas petition collaterally challenging a sentence under Johnson v. United States, which held that a sentence enhanced under the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act violated the Due Process Clause, when the sentencing judge never specified—and therefore the record is silent on—whether the petitioner’s original sentence was enhanced pursuant to the ACCA’s now-invalidated residual clause.

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: Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Jackson 17-1247 Issue: Whether—when in order to create or assign rights to benefits under a state’s domestic relations laws to a person other than the designated beneficiary of a plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the court must “clearly specif[y]” the […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1247

Issue: Whether—when in order to create or assign rights to benefits under a state’s domestic relations laws to a person other than the designated beneficiary of a plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the court must “clearly specif[y]” the information required by 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C)—an order “clearly specifies” the required information when the information can be inferred from the documents as a whole, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has held; when the information is provided in strict compliance with the statute’s requirements on the order’s face, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 10th Circuits have held; when the plan administrator has reason to know the required information, even if it appears nowhere in the order, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and two state high courts have held; or, if none of those standards apply, what is required for a domestic relations order to “clearly specif[y]” the information required by 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C).

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: Estrada v. United States 17-1233 Issue: Whether the deprivation of a lawful permanent resident’s opportunity to pursue statutorily available discretionary relief from removal can render entry of the removal order fundamentally unfair.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1233

Issue: Whether the deprivation of a lawful permanent resident’s opportunity to pursue statutorily available discretionary relief from removal can render entry of the removal order fundamentally unfair.

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: Blagojevich v. United States 17-658 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, when the government prosecutes a public official for […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-658
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, when the government prosecutes a public official for soliciting campaign contributions in an alleged violation of the Hobbs Act or other federal anticorruption laws, the government must prove the defendant made an “explicit promise or undertaking” in exchange for the contribution per McCormick v. United States, as five circuits require, or “only . . . that a public official has obtained a payment . . . knowing that [it] was made in return for official acts per Evans v. United States, as three other circuits hold; and (2) whether a district court may decline to address a defendant’s nonfrivolous argument that a shorter sentence is necessary to avoid “unwarranted sentence disparities,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), so long as it issues a sentence within the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 10th Circuits hold, in conflict with the law of the majority of circuits.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. 17-1229 Issue: Whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1229

Issue: Whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions to watch | Conference of April 13

Petitions to watch | Conference of April 13In its conference of April 13, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear Inc., the Supreme Court should vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s judgment and instruct that court to remand the case to the district court with directions to dismiss […]

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

Petitions to watch | Conference of April 13

In its conference of April 13, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear Inc., the Supreme Court should vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s judgment and instruct that court to remand the case to the district court with directions to dismiss all claims for prospective relief regarding pregnant unaccompanied minors; whether, following Johnson v. United States, in which the Supreme Court invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, identical language in the residual clause of the previously-mandatory sentencing guidelines is likewise unconstitutional; and whether—when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found that the new mitigating evidence discovered on federal habeas review was “double-edged” and could not outweigh the substantial aggravating evidence, and when it misapplied the standard for evaluating prejudice in a Wiggins claim—it denied the petitioner due process.

17-5684

Issues: (1) Whether the petitioner’s mandatory guidelines sentence, which was enhanced under the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, and, if so, whether a conviction for burglary of a dwelling under Florida law qualifies as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s elements clause; and (2) whether published orders issued by a circuit court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), and in the context of applications to file second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, constitute binding precedent outside of that context.

17-654

Issue: Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear Inc., the Supreme Court should vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s judgment and instruct that court to remand the case to the district court with directions to dismiss all claims for prospective relief regarding pregnant unaccompanied minors.

17-887

Issue: Whether the Indiana procedure that allows trial-counsel Strickland v. Washington claims on direct appeal in one of two ways–defendants may assert the claims in their brief on direct appeal if they choose to make no further record in support of their claims or, if they wish to develop a record, defendants may suspend their direct appeal while they develop the factual record in the trial court–satisfies the MartinezTrevino doctrine, which allows a federal habeas court to hear a substantial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel if a state denies a meaningful opportunity to raise the claim on direct appeal.

17-6344

Issues: (1) Whether a certificate of appealability should be issued to determine whether a predicate conviction that requires merely “physical force that overcomes reasonable resistance” satisfies the force clause of the Armed Career Criminals Act; and (2) whether a certificate of appealability should be issued to determine whether a Missouri burglary conviction from 1969 is a violent felony because, like the contemporary Missouri burglary statute, it is a fatally overbroad and indivisible statute.

17-7245

Issue: Whether the death penalty, in and of itself, violates the Eighth Amendment in light of contemporary standards of decency and the geographic arbitrariness of its imposition.

17-6262

Issue: Whether, under the Supreme Court’s opinions in United States v. BookerJohnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended heavily upon the distinction between advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes, the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague.

17-6769

Issue: Whether, under the Supreme Court’s opinions in United States v. BookerJohnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended heavily upon the distinction between advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes, the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague.

17-6877

Issue: Whether, following Johnson v. United States, in which the Supreme Court invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, identical language in the residual clause of the previously-mandatory sentencing guidelines is likewise unconstitutional.

17-742

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s holding—granting qualified immunity to law-enforcement officers who stopped the petitioner from praying silently in her own home because there was no prior case law involving similar facts—conflicts with Hope v. Pelzer, which “expressly rejected a requirement that previous cases be ‘fundamentally similar’” or involve “‘materially similar’ facts.”

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).

17-6883

Issue: Whether—when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found that the new mitigating evidence discovered on federal habeas review was “double-edged” and could not outweigh the substantial aggravating evidence, and when it misapplied the standard for evaluating prejudice in a Wiggins claim—it denied the petitioner due process.

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

from http://www.scotusblog.com