US Supreme Court grants cert. in 10 cases

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)


Docket: 08-1470
Title: Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit expanded the Miranda rule to prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them.

Docket: 08-1402
Title: Berghuis, Warden v. Smith
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply "clearly established Federal law" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when it rejected a state prisoner's Sixth Amendment fair cross-section claim and whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the comparative-disparity test (for evaluating the difference between the numbers of African Americans in the community as compared to the venires).

  • Opinion below (6th Circuit)
  • Petition for certiorari
  • Brief in opposition
  • Petitioner's reply
  • Brief amici curiae of Connecticut, and Six Other States

    Docket: 08-1521
    Title: McDonald, et al.  v. City of Chicago
    Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.

    Docket: 08-1569
    Title: United States v. O'Brien and Burgess
    Issue: Whether the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) to a 30-year minimum when the firearm is a machinegun is an element of the offense that must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or instead a sentencing factor that may be found by a judge by the preponderance of the evidence.

    Docket: 08-1301
    Title: Carr v. United States
    Issue: Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failure to register when the defendant's underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act's enactment ; whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA's enactment.

    Docket: 08-974
    Title: Lewis et al. v. City of Chicago
    Issue: When an employer adopts an employment practice that discriminates against African Americans in violation of Title VII's disparate impact provision, must a plaintiff file an EEOC charge within 300 days after the announcement of the practice, or may a plaintiff file a charge within 300 days after the employer's use of the discriminatory practice?

    Docket: 08-1322
    Title: Astrue v. Ratliff
    Issue: Whether an "award of fees and other expenses" under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), is payable to the "prevailing party" rather than to the prevailing party's attorney, and therefore is subject to an offset for a pre-existing debt owed by the prevailing party to the United States.

    Docket: 08-1498 ; 09-89
    Title: Holder, Attorney General v. Humanitarian Law Project ; Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder
    Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 2339B(a)(1), which prohibits the knowing provision of "any *** service, *** training, [or] expert advice or assistance," to a designated foreign terrorist organization, is unconstitutionally vague; Whether the criminal prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) on the provision of "expert advice or assistance" "derived from scientific [or] technical ... knowledge" and "personnel" are unconstitutional with respect to speech that furthers only lawful, nonviolent activities of proscribed organizations.



    Docket: 08-1529 ; 08-1547
    Title: Migliaccio, et al. v. Castaneda et al. ; Henneford v. Castaneda et al.
    Issue: Does 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) make the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for claims arising from medical care and related functions provided by Public Health Service personnel, thus barring Bivens actions?

    Docket: 08-1555
    Title: Samantar v. Bashe Abdi Yousuf, et al.
    Issue: . Whether a foreign state's immunity from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1604, extends to an individual acting in his official capacity on behalf of a foreign state and whether an individual who is no longer an official of a foreign state at the time suit is filed retains immunity for acts taken in the individual's former capacity as an official acting on behalf of a foreign state.


    0 TrackBacks

    Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: US Supreme Court grants cert. in 10 cases.

    TrackBack URL for this entry:

    Leave a comment

    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by JoNell published on September 30, 2009 8:10 AM.

    US Supreme Court holds conference today was the previous entry in this blog.

    Nevada Supreme Court issues 3 opinions is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

    Powered by Movable Type 4.0