Petitions of the week

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

Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the classification under the Armed Career Criminal Act of a criminal offense that requires a defendant to have acted recklessly; the constitutionality of a categorical exclusion of houses of worship from qualifying for a government historic preservation grant; and the extent to which an accommodation must eliminate a conflict between work and religious practice to be “reasonable.”

The petitions of the week are:

18-349

Issues: (1) Whether an accommodation that merely lessens or has the potential to eliminate the conflict between work and religious practice is “reasonable” per se, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th and 11th Circuits hold; does it instead create a jury question, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 10th Circuits hold; or must an accommodation fully eliminate the conflict in order to be “reasonable,” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 7th and 9th Circuits hold; (2) whether speculation about possible future burdens is sufficient to meet the employer’s burden in establishing “undue hardship,” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th and 11th Circuits hold, or must the employer demonstrate an actual burden, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th Circuits hold; and (3) whether the portion of TWA v. Hardison opining that “undue hardship” simply means something more than a “de minimis cost” should be disavowed or overruled.

18-364

Issues: (1) Whether using generally available historic preservation funds to repair or restore a house of worship constitutes a “religious use” that falls outside the scope of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v. Comer; and (2) whether the categorial exclusion of all active houses of worship from historic preservation grants violates Trinity Lutheran and the First Amendment as an exclusion based on religious status.

18-365

Issue: Whether the categorical exclusion of active houses of worship from a competitive government grant program advancing the secular interest of historic preservation violates the free exercise clause of the Constitution of the United States.

18-370

Issue: Whether a criminal offense with a mens rea of recklessness qualifies as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).

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 petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the statute of limitations that applies to relators in a qui tam action, the cause requirement to force entry into a home to arrest a suspect, and the question of whether the transformative use of a copyrighted work can be a cognizable market harm.

The petitions of the week are:

18-315

Issue: Whether a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene and, if so, whether the relator constitutes an “official of the United States” for purposes of Section 3731(b)(2).

18-321

Issue: Whether the transformative use of a copyrighted work can cause a cognizable market harm under 17 U.S.C. § 107(4) if it is used in connection with a commercially successful business that the author is unlikely to enter or authorize.

18-339

Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to have probable cause to believe that a suspect is present in a home before forcing entry into that home to execute an arrest warrant for the suspect.

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 petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering “immoral” or “scandalous” marks, standing requirements for a consumer seeking injunctive relief with regard to allegedly misleading consumer products, and the law that governs common-fund fee awards.

The petitions of the week are:

18-301

Issue: Whether common-fund fee awards are governed in diversity cases by state or federal law.

18-302

Issue: Whether Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is facially invalid under the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

18-304

Issue: Whether a consumer, after using a product and determining that a representation concerning that product is allegedly misleading, can plausibly allege a “real and immediate threat” that she will be deceived by that same representation in the future so as to establish standing to seek an injunction.

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 petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the reach of the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirement, the constitutionality of establishing personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on the contacts of a defendant’s alleged co-conspirators, and the categorical classification of an indivisible state statute that criminalizes false agency endorsement.

The petitions of the week are:

18-167
Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case.

Issue: Whether the due process clause permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based on the contacts of the defendant’s alleged co-conspirators with the forum state, as the court below held; or whether the due process analysis looks only to the defendant’s own contacts with the forum state and not those of alleged co-conspirators, as the Nebraska and Texas Supreme Courts have held.

18-247

Issue: Whether Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act—which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security sweeping power to waive any or all legal requirements in her sole discretion, and then insulates that exercise of discretion from judicial review—violates the separation of powers.

18-260

Issues: (1) Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater; and (2) whether the County of Maui had fair notice that a Clean Water Act permit was required for its underground injection control wells that operated without such a permit for nearly 40 years.

18-268

Issues: (1) Whether the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirement is confined to discharges from a point source to navigable waters, or whether it also applies to discharges into soil or groundwater whenever there is a “direct hydrological connection” between the groundwater and nearby navigable waters; and (2) whether an “ongoing violation” of the Clean Water Act exists for purposes of the act’s citizen-suit provision when a point source has permanently ceased discharging pollutants, but some of the pollutants are still reaching navigable water through groundwater.

18-273

Issue: Whether an indivisible state statute that criminalizes false agency endorsement is categorically “an offense relating to … forgery” and thus an aggravated felony.

 

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 petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the constitutionality of New York City’s ban on the transportation of handguns outside of the city; the availability of punitive damages to a Jones Act seaman in a certain personal-injury action; the applicability of the particularity requirement to the probable-cause findings in a warrant; and the classification of a prior salary as a permissible differential when paying men and women different wages for the same work under the Equal Pay Act.

The petitions of the week are:

18-266

Issue: Whether punitive damages may be awarded to a Jones Act seaman in a personal-injury suit alleging a breach of the general maritime duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.

18-272

Issues: (1) Whether—when the Equal Pay Act permits employers to pay men and women different wages for the same work “where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex,” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)—a prior salary is a “factor other than sex”; and (2) whether deceased judges may continue to participate in the determination of cases after their deaths.

18-280

Issue: Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause and the constitutional right to travel.

18-285

Issues: (1) Whether severance is the default remedy when part of a warrant is valid, or whether the Fourth Amendment requires that the valid sections make up “the greater part of the warrant”; (2) whether the particularity clause—which requires a warrant to describe “the place to be search[ed]” and “the things to be seized” with sufficient particularity— also requires a warrant to state its probable-cause findings with particularity; and (3) whether the exclusionary rule applies when the issuing judge signs off on the officer’s legal mistake in filling out a warrant form.

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 petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the constitutional implications of trial counsel’s failure to make an argument based on persuasive, as opposed to controlling, authority; the extent to which the National Bank Act pre-empts state laws; and the limitations the due process clause imposes when prosecuting a juvenile under a statute that provides only punishments that cannot constitutionally be applied to juveniles.

The petitions of the week are:

18-188

Issues: (1) Whether trial counsel’s failure to make an argument that courts of appeals outside the circuit have accepted (and the circuit has not addressed) may amount to constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel or, instead, whether only directly controlling precedent is relevant; and (2) whether, when a defendant and the government have agreed that the court will address at sentencing a factual question for purposes of imposing a statutory mandatory-minimum sentence, they have also implicitly agreed that the defendant’s “offense of conviction” has “established” the factual finding for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines.

18-192

Issue: Whether the due process clause forbids the government from prosecuting an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the crime under a statute that provides no punishment that can constitutionally be applied to that individual.

18-212

Issues: (1) Whether the National Bank Act pre-empts state laws regulating national-bank loan terms, such as California’s law requiring payment of interest on mortgage-loan escrow accounts; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in disregarding regulations from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the primary regulator of national banks, concerning the applicability of state real-estate lending laws to national banks.

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 petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, Article III standing requirements with regard to individuals whose personal information is held in a database breached by hackers, the effect of the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary-function exception on the act’s law-enforcement proviso, and whether a trial court may deny a criminal defendant’s motion to represent himself based on the defendant’s improper motive or unethical conduct.

The petitions of the week are:

18-217

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in concluding—in direct conflict with Virginia’s highest court and other courts—that a decision of the Supreme Court, Montgomery v. Louisiana, addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision, Miller v. Alabama, applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question.

18-225

Issue: Whether individuals whose personal information is held in a database breached by hackers have Article III standing simply by virtue of the breach even without concrete injury, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 9th and District of Columbia Circuits have held, or whether concrete injury as a result of the breach is required for Article III standing, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th Circuits have held.

18-234

Issue: Whether, and to what extent, the discretionary-function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), restricts the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso, which waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for “[a]ny claim” arising out of an enumerated list of intentional common-law torts committed by federal law-enforcement officers.

18-238

Issue: Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred when it held, in conflict with many federal courts of appeals, that a trial court may not deny a criminal defendant’s motion to represent himself based on the “defendant’s improper motive or unethical conduct.”

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 petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether a general choice-of-law clause in a contract that contains an arbitration agreement should be read to import state substantive law without importing state rules impairing arbitration, the effect of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s tailoring requirement for prospective relief, and the establishment of the element of loss causation in a securities-fraud case.

The petitions of the week are:

18-162
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.

Issue: Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s tailoring requirement – which provides that before a district court may order prospective relief with respect to prison conditions, it must find “that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) – prohibits a district court from ordering a prison to maintain a maximum heat index to remedy a constitutional violation caused by heat.

18-164

Issue: Whether a private securities-fraud plaintiff may establish the critical element of loss causation based on a decline in the market price of a security when the event or disclosure that triggered the decline did not reveal the fraud on which the plaintiff’s claim is based.

18-174

Issues: (1) Whether a general choice-of-law clause in a contract that contains an arbitration agreement should be read, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court’s decisions, to import state substantive law without importing state rules impairing arbitration, as 10 federal courts of appeals and nine state courts of appeals have held, or whether a general choice-of-law clause should be read to incorporate both state substantive law and state arbitration principles, including those barring or otherwise evincing hostility to arbitration, as four state courts of appeals and one federal court of appeals have held; and (2) whether a litigant may avoid the enforcement of a contractual clause delegating questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator merely by stating that the litigant’s objection to arbitration—which must ordinarily be resolved by the arbitrator—apply equally to the delegation clause itself.

18-175

Issues: (1) Whether a general choice-of-law clause in a contract that contains an arbitration agreement should be read, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court’s decisions, to import state substantive law without importing state rules impairing arbitration, as 10 federal courts of appeals and nine state courts of appeals have held, or whether a general choice-of-law clause should be read to incorporate both state substantive law and state arbitration principles, including those barring or otherwise evincing hostility to arbitration, as four state courts of appeals and one federal court of appeals have held; and (2) whether a litigant may avoid the enforcement of a contractual clause delegating questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator merely by stating that the litigant’s objection to arbitration—which must ordinarily be resolved by the arbitrator—apply equally to the delegation clause itself.

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 petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the standard for determining the adequacy of the “written description of the invention” in a patent, the effect of the Hobbs Act on whether courts may engage in a traditional Chevron analysis, and the interplay between Federal Power Act and the powers of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The petitions of the week are:

17-1705

Issues: (1) Whether the Hobbs Act strips courts of jurisdiction to engage in a traditional Chevron analysis and requires automatic deference to an agency’s order even if there has been no challenge to the “validity” of such order; and (2) whether faxes that “promote goods and services even at no cost” must have a commercial nexus to a firm’s business to qualify as an “advertisement” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which permitted civil liability for sending “unsolicited advertisements” by fax; or whether a plain reading of the rules set forth by the Federal Communications Commission creates a per se rule that such faxes are automatically “advertisements.”

18-127

Issue: Whether the standard for determining the adequacy of the “written description of the invention” in a patent must be “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the same,” as stated within the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), or whether court-created standards should control instead.

18-153

Issues: (1) Whether, given the Supreme Court’s holdings that the Federal Power Act pre-empts inconsistent state ratemaking and requires state agencies to treat cost allocations made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as reasonable, FERC may deny a refund authorized by FPA Section 206(b) based on the threat of a state regulatory commission to violate the supremacy clause by denying recovery of the surcharge needed to make the refund; and (2) whether – when FERC grants a refund for an unjust and unreasonable holding-company cost allocation, pursuant to its policy to grant refunds for unjust and unreasonable rates, and numerous holding-company refund decisions support the policy – a U.S. court of appeals may, without scrutiny, accept FERC’s subsequent reversal of its refund decision based on its assertion that its previously cited policy never existed, and its reversal of key prior findings without explanation.

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 cert petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the scope of Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of … sex” with regard to transgender individuals, the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the context of plea negotiations, and the constitutional consequences of waiving a state-law right to have a jury make an advisory sentencing recommendation in a capital case.

The petitions of the week are:

18-106

Issues: (1) Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when the prosecutor conducts plea negotiations before the filing of a formal charge; and (2) whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when a federal prosecutor conducts plea negotiations before the filing of a formal charge in federal court when the defendant has already been charged with the same offense in state court.

18-107

Issues: (1) Whether the word “sex” in Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of … sex,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), meant “gender identity” and included “transgender status” when Congress enacted Title VII in 1964; and (2) whether Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins prohibits employers from applying sex-specific policies according to their employees’ sex rather than their gender identity.

18-113

Issue: Whether waiving a state-law right to have a jury make an advisory sentencing recommendation constitutes a knowing and intelligent waiver of the federal constitutional right to have a jury make all requisite findings for the imposition of death, particularly when the latter right did not exist at the time of the waiver.

The post Petitions of the week appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Read more