Petitions of the week

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Aurora Barnes.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight cert petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address retroactive “public nuisance” liability and the due process clause, the application of a state anti-SLAPP provision in federal court, and the powers granted to states by the 21st Amendment.

The petitions of the week are:

18-84

Issues: (1) Whether imposing massive and retroactive “public nuisance” liability without requiring proof that the defendant’s nearly century-old conduct caused any individual plaintiff any injury violates the due process clause; and (2) whether retroactively imposing massive liability based on a defendant’s nearly century-old promotion of its then-lawful products without requiring proof of reliance thereon or injury therefrom violates the First Amendment.

18-86

Issues: (1) Whether, in conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, the First Amendment permits California to impose tort liability for truthfully promoting a lawful product that it finds to be hazardous in some uses; and (2) whether the due process clause allows a state to impose retroactive and grossly disproportionate public nuisance liability to inspect and abate millions of residences based on decades-old promotions without evidence that consumers relied on those promotions or that petitioner’s lead paint is in any residence.

18-89

Issues: (1) Whether a state anti-SLAPP provision requiring an award of attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing defendant applies in federal court as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 9th Circuits have concluded, in conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th and District of Columbia Circuits; and (2) whether a state anti-SLAPP provision requiring expedited disposition of dismissal motions applies in federal court as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st and 5th Circuits have held, in conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th and District of Columbia Circuits.

18-96

Issue: Whether the 21st Amendment empowers states, consistent with the dormant commerce clause, to regulate liquor sales by granting retail or wholesale licenses only to individuals or entitles that have resided in-state for a specified time.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Petitions of the week

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Aurora Barnes.

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight three cert petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the use of a 2017 Supreme Court decision, Moore v. Texas, to find that a state court in 2008 unreasonably applied Atkins v. Virginia; criminal convictions requiring removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and crimes that qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a).

The petitions of the week are:

18-56

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit properly used Moore v. Texas, a Supreme Court decision from 2017, to find that an Ohio court unreasonably applied Atkins v. Virginia in 2008, despite the Ohio court’s reliance on the clinical judgments of experts to find that Hill was not intellectually disabled.

18-64

Issue: Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

18-78

Issue: Whether, when a state statute criminalizes only the causation or threat of bodily harm without a distinct element requiring the use or threatened use of physical force, that offense qualifies as a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) as the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 7th, 8th and 9th Circuits have held, or whether 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) applies only if the statute also requires the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd and 5th Circuits have held.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Petitions of the week

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Aurora Barnes.

Petitions of the week

This week, the Supreme Court has been presented with petitions involving issues such as whether the establishment clause requires the removal or destruction of a 93-year-old memorial to American servicemen who died in World War I solely because the memorial bears the shape of a cross; and whether public school teachers and coaches retain any First Amendment rights when at work and “in the general presence of” students.

The petitions of the week are:

17-1703

Issue: Whether, under the “safe alternatives policy” of Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency lacks authority to prohibit the use of a less-safe substitute for an ozone-depleting substance in favor of a safer alternative, just because a company has already begun using the less-safe substitute.

18-2

Issue: Whether the Environmental Protection Agency has authority under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use of dangerous but non-ozone-depleting substitutes by any person, including by product manufacturers who began using such substitutes before the EPA placed them on the prohibited list.

18-18

Issue: Whether the establishment clause requires the removal or destruction of a 93-year-old memorial to American servicemen who died in World War I solely because the memorial bears the shape of a cross.

17-1717

Issues: (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. KurtzmanVan Orden v. PerryTown of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.

18-3

Issues: (1) Whether Section 302(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186(e), provides for a private right of action; and (2) whether a labor organization violates its duty of fair representation by refusing to honor, at the end of the next applicable irrevocability period, employees’ check-off authorization revocations that are not sent during an annual, 15-day window period and by certified mail.

18-12

Issue: Whether public school teachers and coaches retain any First Amendment rights when at work and “in the general presence of” students.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Petitions of the week: The new “Petition of the day”

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Aurora Barnes.

Petitions of the week: The new “Petition of the day”

As of this week, the “Petitions of the week” post will replace the “Petition of the day” post. The now-weekly post functions the same way as its daily predecessor: It is a vehicle for identifying recently filed petitions that raise issues that have a reasonable chance of being granted in an appropriate case. As a reminder, we generally do not evaluate whether a petition is the appropriate vehicle to decide the question, which is a critical consideration in determining whether certiorari will be granted.

This week, the Supreme Court has been presented with petitions involving issues such as whether the 11th Amendment prevents the entry of injunctive and declaratory relief in federal court against a governor, attorney general and state-court administrator to prevent the continued enforcement of a categorical and nonwaivable state ban against granting a legal change of name to any person who is not a United States citizen; and whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), an asylum applicant whose testimony is deemed credible, but who the Immigration Judge determines “should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony,” must be given the opportunity to obtain and provide such evidence. 

The petitions of the week are:

17-1637

Issues: (1) Whether the 11th Amendment prevents the entry of injunctive and declaratory relief in federal court against a governor, attorney general and state court administrator to prevent the continued enforcement of a categorical and nonwaivable state ban against granting a legal change of name to any person who is not a United States citizen; and (2) whether the article III standing doctrines of causation and redressability bar the entry of injunctive and declaratory relief in federal court against a county clerk of court to prevent the continued enforcement of a categorical and nonwaivable state ban on granting a legal change of name to any person who is not a United States citizen.

17-1652

Issue: Whether an agreement that requires a customer to resolve a dispute through arbitration is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., notwithstanding the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code providing for a statutorily enforceable discharge of a debtor’s debts.

17-1700

Issues: (1) Whether the Pennsylvania Constitution’s substantive provisions and whatever interpretation Pennsylvania courts afford them, however atextual, can restrict time, place and manner rules Pennsylvania’s lawmakers have passed to govern congressional elections pursuant to the elections clause of the United States Constitution; and (2) whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has no lawmaking authority, may, consistent with the elections clause, adopt a redistricting plan as a remedy solely for state-law violations and, if so, whether it may, consistent with the elections clause, craft redistricting wholesale in creating that remedy.

17-1701

Issue: Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), an asylum applicant whose testimony is deemed credible, but whom the Immigration Judge determines “should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony,” must be given the opportunity to obtain and provide such evidence.

17-1712

Issues: (1) Whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek injunctive relief against fiduciary misconduct under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; and (2) whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek restoration of plan losses caused by fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof.

17-1713
Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.

Issue: Whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act “preempts all state occupational safety and health laws” relating to issue covered by federal standards “unless they are included in the state plan,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; or whether a state may employ supplemental enforcement mechanisms for workplace safety standards even if not included in the state plan, as the Supreme Court of California held in this case.

 

The post Petitions of the week: The new “Petition of the day” appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Petition of the day

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Aurora Barnes.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1695

Issue: Whether, if a court determines that a complaint filed by one shareholder does not plead demand futility with the requisite particularity, the due process clause and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Taylor v. Sturgell and Smith v. Bayer Corp. permit binding other shareholders that were not parties to the initial litigation to that decision, thus barring consideration of whether a new complaint filed by those shareholders pleads sufficient allegations to demonstrate that pre-suit demand was futile.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Petition of the day

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Aurora Barnes.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1692

Issue: Whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held, the Seventh Amendment categorically bars review of district court denials of motions for a new trial made on the ground that the weight of the evidence does not support the verdict; or whether, as all other geographic circuits hold, such denials are reviewable.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Petition of the day

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Aurora Barnes.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1687

Issue: Whether the government may obtain convictions for bribery under the honest-services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, and the federal-programs bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666, in the absence of jury instructions expressly requiring an intended quid pro quo exchange.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Petition of the day

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Aurora Barnes.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1678

Issues: (1) Whether, when the plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established Fourth and Fifth amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, the federal courts can and should recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics; and (2) whether, if the federal courts do not recognize such a claim, the Westfall Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment insofar as it pre-empts state-law torts suits for damages against rogue federal law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their employment for which there is no alternative legal remedy.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Petition of the day

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Aurora Barnes.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1672

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in holding “unconstitutional and unenforceable” the portions of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) that required the district court to revoke respondent’s ten-year term of supervised released, and to impose five years of reimprisonment, following its finding by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent violated the conditions of his release by knowingly possessing child pornography.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more

Petition of the day

Read more of this story here from SCOTUSblog by Aurora Barnes.

Petition of the day

The petition of the day is:

17-1676

Issue: Whether the Alabama courts’ decision to permit the introduction of written “reports” to law enforcement, regarding blood alcohol tests, into evidence for the truth of the matters asserted therein — despite the lack of testimony from the person who performed the test and signed the report, or any witness who personally involved in the testing of the blood samples in question — is contrary to Bullcoming v. New Mexico.

The post Petition of the day appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more