Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co. 17-1060 Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case. Issues: (1) Whether, under the first-to-file bar of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5), later actions may […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1060
Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.

Issues: (1) Whether, under the first-to-file bar of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5), later actions may proceed without refiling once all earlier action have been dismissed, or whether later actions must be dismissed and refiled; and (2) whether the first-to-file bar of the FCA is jurisdictional, and, if so, whether the bar applies only at the time of filing, or whether it may be lifted by amendment, supplement, or later events.

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: Colorado v. Fuentes-Espinoza 17-1084 Issue: Whether, under principles of implied pre-emption, the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., forbids states from enacting legislation to prohibit human smuggling.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1084

Issue: Whether, under principles of implied pre-emption, the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., forbids states from enacting legislation to prohibit human smuggling.

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: Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission 17-1077 Issue: Whether a misstatement claim that does not meet the elements set forth in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders can be repackaged and pursued as a fraudulent scheme claim.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1077

Issue: Whether a misstatement claim that does not meet the elements set forth in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders can be repackaged and pursued as a fraudulent scheme claim.

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: SNR Wireless License Co. v. Federal Communications Commission 17-1058 Issue: Whether, and what, notice an agency must provide to regulated parties in order to provide proper administrative fair notice.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1058

Issue: Whether, and what, notice an agency must provide to regulated parties in order to provide proper administrative fair notice.

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: Garza v. Idaho 17-1026 Issue: Whether the “presumption of prejudice” recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies where a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1026

Issue: Whether the “presumption of prejudice” recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies where a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver.

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: Jam v. International Finance Corp. 17-1011 Issues: (1) Whether the International Organizations Immunities Act—which affords international organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments have, 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b)—confers the same immunity on such organizations as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-11; and […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1011

Issues: (1) Whether the International Organizations Immunities Act—which affords international organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments have, 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b)—confers the same immunity on such organizations as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-11; and (2) whether, and what, rules govern the immunity to which international organizations are entitled if the IOIA does not afford the same immunity.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petitions to watch | Conference of February 16

Petitions to watch | Conference of February 16In its conference of February 16, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the death penalty in and of itself violates the Eighth Amendment, in light of contemporary standards of decency; whether Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. and Auer v. Robbins should be overruled; and whether, in deadly force shooting cases, the U.S. […]

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of February 16 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petitions to watch | Conference of February 16

In its conference of February 16, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the death penalty in and of itself violates the Eighth Amendment, in light of contemporary standards of decency; whether Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. and Auer v. Robbins should be overruled; and whether, in deadly force shooting cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred by requiring that the jury must be instructed regarding the specific legal justifications for the use of deadly force, and that the usual less specific instructions regarding the use of excessive force are not adequate, when such a requirement is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris and subsequent decisions, which abrogated the use of special standards in deadly force cases and established “reasonableness” as the ultimate and only inquiry.

17-515

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, thus creating a conflict with the decisions of other circuits and within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit itself, by employing rules of contract interpretation explicitly repudiated in Tackett to deem a general duration clause in the collective bargaining agreement ambiguous, and then using extrinsic evidence to hold the healthcare benefits of the retiree class vested for life.

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.

17-251

Issues: (1) Whether Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme, which includes so many aggravating circumstances that virtually every defendant convicted of first-degree murder is eligible for death, violates the Eighth Amendment; and (2) whether the death penalty in and of itself violates the Eighth Amendment, in light of contemporary standards of decency.

17-467

Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Andrew Kisela, the police officer who found Amy Hughes walking down her driveway toward another woman while carrying a large kitchen knife, acted unreasonably when he shot and wounded Hughes after she ignored commands to drop the knife given Kisela’s well-founded belief that potentially lethal force was necessary to protect the other woman from an attack that could have serious or deadly consequences; and (2) whether the lower court erred—to the point of warranting summary reversal—in refusing qualified immunity in the absence of any precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation based on similar facts and, indeed, ignoring a case with remarkably similar facts that found no constitutional violation.

17-587

Issue: Whether, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the same 20-employee minimum that applies to private employers also applies to political subdivisions of a state, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th Circuits have held, or whether the ADEA applies instead to all state political subdivisions of any size, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held in this case.

17-340

Issues: (1) Whether a dispute over applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exemption is an arbitrability issue that must be resolved in arbitration pursuant to a valid delegation clause; and (2) whether the FAA’s Section 1 exemption, which applies on its face only to “contracts of employment,” is inapplicable to independent contractor agreements.

17-5165

Issue: Whether Richardson v. United States precludes a double jeopardy appeal based on evidentiary insufficiency when the jury returns a guilty verdict that is set aside for a new trial.

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).

17-552

Issues: (1) Whether, in deadly force shooting cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred by requiring that the jury must be instructed regarding the specific legal justifications for the use of deadly force, and that the usual less specific instructions regarding the use of excessive force are not adequate, when such a requirement is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris and subsequent decisions, which abrogated the use of special standards in deadly force cases and established “reasonableness” as the ultimate and only inquiry; and (2) whether, in light of the direct conflict with several of its sister circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s requirement that a jury must be instructed regarding the specific legal justifications for the use of deadly force creates an uncertainty preventing law enforcement officers from having adequate fair notice of what conduct is proscribed or constitutionally permissible, thereby further hampering the application of qualified immunity at the earliest stage of a case.

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of February 16 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Petition of the day

Petition of the dayThe petition of the day is: North Carolina v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. 17-683 Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred by holding that sovereign title to submerged lands in the original thirteen states depends on federal law instead of state law; and (2) whether the lower court erred by exercising […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-683

Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred by holding that sovereign title to submerged lands in the original thirteen states depends on federal law instead of state law; and (2) whether the lower court erred by exercising removal jurisdiction over North Carolina’s state-law claim without considering the disruption to the federal state balance as required by Gunn v. Minton.

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: Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 17-1009 Issue: Whether a state’s denial of a federally-approved interstate natural gas pipeline’s request for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717b(d)(3), on the basis of purportedly receiving insufficient information regarding alternative routes […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1009

Issue: Whether a state’s denial of a federally-approved interstate natural gas pipeline’s request for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717b(d)(3), on the basis of purportedly receiving insufficient information regarding alternative routes for the interstate natural gas pipeline, exceeds the state’s limited authority under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Natural Gas Act of 1938, interferes with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction over the routing of interstate natural gas pipelines when consideration of alternative routes is explicitly not part of the state’s federally-approved water quality standards, and violates the fundamental principles of federal supremacy arising from the Constitution’s supremacy 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: Oath Holdings, Inc. v. Ajemian 17-1005 Issue: Whether a court-appointed legal representative, such as an estate administrator, should be able to provide lawful consent under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., for the disclosure of private email messages stored in an online email account by a […]

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1005

Issue: Whether a court-appointed legal representative, such as an estate administrator, should be able to provide lawful consent under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., for the disclosure of private email messages stored in an online email account by a user who died without a will or any other indication of actual consent.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com