Entries tagged with “certiorari” from Harmfulerror
Scotusblog provides the relevant docs:
Title: Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association
Docket: 08-1448
Issues: (1) Whether the First Amendment permit any limits on offensive content in violent video games sold to minors; and (2) whether a state regulation for displaying offensive, harmful images to children is invalid if it fails to satisfy the exacting "strict scrutiny" standard of review.
Title: Ortiz v. Jordan
Docket: 09-737
Issue: May a party appeal an order denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits if the party chose not to appeal the order before trial?
Title: Hogan v. Kaltag Tribal Council
Docket: 09-960
Issue: Whether the hundreds of Indian tribes throughout the State of Alaska have authority to initiate and adjudicate child custody proceedings involving a nonmember and then to compel the State to give full faith and credit to the decrees entered in those proceedings.
- Opinion below (Unpublished, 9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioners' reply
- Amicus brief of Edward Parks and Donielle Taylor
The US Supreme Court issued one opinion today. In a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Thomas, the Court holds in United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa that a bankruptcy court order, which discharged a student loan debt without a showing of undue hardship, was not void under Rule 60(b)(4) and was not void based on the debtor's failure to serve the creditor because the creditor had actual notice of the plan and failed to object.
Yesterday, the Court granted certiorari in four cases. Scotusblog provides details and links to relevant docs:
Title: Connick v. Thompson
Docket: 09-571
Issue: (1) Does imposing liability for failing to train a prosecutor on a district attorney's office for a single Brady violation contravene rigorous culpability and causation standards? (2) Does imposing failure-to-train liability on a district attorney's office for a single Brady violation undermine prosecutors' absolute immunity?
- Ruling denying retrial below and judgment below (District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; 5th Circuit en banc panel split evenly, affirming the district court decision)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioners' reply
- Amicus brief of the National District Attorneys Association
- Amicus brief of Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorneys
Title: Belleque v. Moore
Docket: 09-658
Issues: (1) Whether the Fulminante standard -- that the erroneous admission of a coerced confession at the trial is not harmless -- applies when a collateral challenge is based on a defense attorney's decision not to move to suppress a confession prior to a guilty or no contest plea, even though no record of a trial is available for review, and (2) even if it does, is it "clearly established Federal law" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Petitioner's reply
Title: Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
Docket: 09-834
Issue: Is an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act protected conduct under the anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)?
- Opinion below, opinion below denying rehearing (7th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
Title: Flores-Villar v. United States
Docket: 09-5801
Issue: Whether the Court's decision in Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2001) permits gender discrimination that has no biological basis?
via Scotusblog,
The Court has granted cert. in three cases, NASA v. Nelson (09-320), Snyder v. Phillips (09-751), and Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (09-152).
Title: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth
Docket: 09-152
Issue: Whether Section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 -- which expressly preempts certain design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers "if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warning" -- preempts all vaccine design defect claims, regardless whether the vaccine's side effects were unavoidable.
- Opinion below (3d Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Supplemental brief addressed to the amicus brief of the United States in American Home Products Corp. v. Ferrari
- Amicus brief of the National Vaccine Information Center
Title: Snyder v. Phelps
Docket: 09-751
Issue: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter; (2) whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly; and (3) whether an individual attending a family member's funeral constitutes a "captive audience" who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.
- Opinion below (4th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
Title: National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson
Docket: 09-530
Issues: Whether the government violates a federal contract employee's constitutional right to informational privacy by (1) asking in the course of a background investigation whether the employee has received counseling or treatment for illegal drug use that has occurred within the past year and/or (2) asking the employee's designated references for any adverse information that may have a bearing on the employee's suitability for employment at a federal facility -- when the employee's and reference's responses are used only for employment purposes, and the information obtained is protected under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
- Opinion below (9th Circuit, denial of rehearing en banc)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case today: Michigan v. Bryant. Scotusblog provides links to the lower court opinion, petition for cert. and opposition:
Issue: Whether preliminary inquiries of a wounded citizen concerning the perpetrator and circumstances of the shooting are nontestimonial because they were "made under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency," including not only aid to a wounded victim, but also the prompt identification and apprehension of an apparently violent and dangerous individual?
- Opinion below (Michigan Supreme Court)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases this week. Scotusblog provides a summary and links to relevant documents:
Title: Los Angeles County v. Humphries
Docket: 09-350
Issues: (1) For a claim for declaratory relief against a local public entity, must the plaintiff demonstrate that the constitutional violation was the result of a policy, custom or practice attributable to the local public entity; and (2) if the plaintiff has not made such a showing, may he or she be a "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for purposes of a fee award?
Title: Harrington v. Richter
Docket: 09-587
Issue: Does a defense lawyer violate the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when he does not investigate or present available forensic evidence supporting the theory of defense he uses during trial and instead relies on cross-examination and other methods designed to create reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt?
This morning the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases. In Christian Legal Society v. Martin the Court will decide whether it is unconstitutional for a state-run college (Hastings Law School) to exclude from official status a student religious group that limits its officers and voting members to those who accept its religious beliefs. In Dillon v. U.S., the Court will consider whether the Court's 2005 ruling in U.S. v. Booker, which made the federal sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, applies to sentence modification proceedings.
The briefs in these cases and today's order list are available via Scotusblog.
From Scotusblog.com:
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.
- Opinion below (6th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Petitioner's reply
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).
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.
- Opinion below (7th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (08-1521)
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply (08-1521)
- Brief amicus curiae of Arms Keepers
- Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al
- Brief amicus curiae of National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
- Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union
- Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, and Cato Institute
- Brief amicus curiae of California
- Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc.,et al.
- Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Professors
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?
- Opinion below (7th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
- Brief amicus curiae of the United States
- Supplemental brief of respondent
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.
08-1498
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
- Brief amici curiae of James J. Carey, et al.
09-89
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?
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
- Brief amicus curiae of United States
- Petition for certiorari (08-1547)
- Petitioner's reply (08-1557)
- Brief amicus curiae of Commissioned Officers Association of the United States Public Health Service, Inc. (08-1547)
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.
The US Supreme Court is holding a conference today in which it will consider cert. petitions in a large number of cases. Scotusblog previews several petitions which have a reasonable chance of being granted:
The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in Nevada v. Harte. The case presented a challenge by the State to the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. State.
The Court granted certiorari in one case this morning: Merck & Co. v. Reynolds presents the issue of whether under the "inquiry notice" standard applicable to federal securities claims, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until an investor receives evidence of scienter.
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari in four cases this morning. Scotusblog provides links to the petitions, oppositions, replies, amici briefs and opinions below.
Beard v. Kindler - Is a state procedural rule automatically "inadequate" under the adequate-state-grounds doctrine - and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas corpus review - because the state rule is discretionary rather than mandatory?
Black, et al. v. United States - Whether the "honest services" clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants "reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm," and if the defendants' reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government's request for a special verdict.
Lewis, et al. v. City of Chicago - Where 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?
Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, et al.
Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is consistent with separation-of-powers principles - as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is in turn overseen by the President - or contrary to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, as the PCAOB members are appointed by the SEC.
The Washoe County DA's Office has filed a petition for certiorari with the US Supreme Court in Nevada v. Harte. The case presents a challenge to the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling in McConnell v. State, which held that the State may not obtain aggravating circumstances for burglary, robbery and other underlying felonies if the defendant is found guilty only under a felony-murder theory. The US Supreme Court listed the case on its conference agenda for last Friday, May 14, but no decision was made on the petition. It is again listed for conference this Friday. This may be an indication that the Court is interested in the issue. It's likely that the order from Friday's conference will be released next Monday.
Scotusblog provides copies of the cert. petition, brief in opposition and opinion below.
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari in four cases today:
Sullivan v. Florida - constitutionality of life prison terms without a chance for parole for juveniles who commit crimes other than murder in their teen years.
Graham v. Florida - same
Hemi Group LLC v. City of New York - Whether a city government meets the RICO standing requirement that a plaintiff be directly injured in its "business or property" by alleging non-commercial injury from non payment of taxes by non-litigating third parties.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Ass'n v. Allstate Insurance - Can a state legislature prohibit federal courts from using the class action device for state law claims?
Scotusblog provides links to the petitions, briefs in opposition and replies.
From scotusblog:
The Court has granted certiorari in three cases: Bloate v. U.S., United States v. Stevens, and Pottawattamie County et al. v. McGhee et al. The full order list is available here.
Docket: 08-728
Title: Bloate v. U.S.
Issue: Whether time granted at the request of a defendant to prepare pretrial motions qualifies as "delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant" and is thus excludable from the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.
Docket: 08-769
Title: United States v. Stevens
Issue: Is 18 U.S.C. 48, on depictions of animal cruelty, facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
Docket: 08-1065
Title: Pottawattamie County et al. v. McGhee et al.
Issue: Whether a prosecutor may be subjected to a civil trial and potential damages for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly violated a criminal defendant's "substantive due process" rights by procuring false testimony during the criminal investigation, and then introduced that same testimony against the criminal defendant at trial.
Scotusblog provides links to the briefs, petitions and opinions below for each of the three cases.
Via Scotusblog:
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in five cases today:
Salazar (Interior Secretary) v. Buono : government's appeal testing Congress' power to allow a religious display to remain on public property simply by transferring ownership to a private group or individual. The case also raises issues about who may sue to challenge such displays.
Alvarez v. Smith: The legal standard for a court hearing to test the forfeiture of property used in a drug crime.
Padilla v. Kentucky : The duty of an attorney to advise a client facing mandatory deporation from the U.S. after pleading guilty to trafficking in marijuana.
Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotice Engineers: The scope of federal courts' authority to second-guess arbitration decisions made to resolve labor disputes in the railroad and airline industries.
Smith v. Spisak: Judges' duty to advise jurors on whether unanimity is required in finding factors that bear upon imposing a death sentence.
Johnson v. U.S. : The status of a state conviction for felony battery as a violent crime under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act. The Court granted questions 1 and 2 in the petition, both related to that issue. The Court declined to hear a third question, asking the Court to overrule its 1998 decision in Almendarez-Torres v. U.S. -- allowing a judge, rather than the jury, to rule on prior convictions as a basis for enhancing a criminal sentence. The Court has refused several times to consider that issue, which involves the only exception to the jury role the Court mandated in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and later cases.
Scotusblog provides links to the opinions below, petitions for certiorari, briefs in opposition, replies and briefs of amicus curiae.
Justice Ginsburg was present for the Court's announcement of the orders and today's oral arguments.
The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to the Ninth Circuit in a federal habeas corpus case concerning a Nevada conviction. The questions presented in the State's petition are:
1. What is the standard of review for a federal habeas court for analyzing a sufficiency-of-the evidence claim under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)?
2. Does analysis of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim pursuant to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 US 307, 318-19 (1979), under 28 USC 2254(d)(1) permit a federal habeas court to expland the record or consider non-record evidence to determine the reliability of testimony and evidence given at trial?
The Ninth Circuit's opinion and the brief in opposition are available. Paul Turner at the Federal Public Defender's Office represents Troy Brown. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a ruling by Judge Pro that there was insufficient evidence to support a sexual assault conviction against Troy Brown for murder. False DNA testimony was provided to the jury and the State conceded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction without the false testimony. At issue is a statistical analysis that was submitted in the federal court proceedings that was submitted as a supplement to a claim raised in state court.
The Court also granted certiorari in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter (whether a party may immediately appeal a discovery order to disclose materials said to be covered by the attorney-client privilege) and Maryland v. Shatzer (whether Edwards v. Arizona, which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place nearly three years later). Scotusblog provides links to the lower court opinions, petitions and briefs in opposition in those cases.
On Friday the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in six cases, three of which involve criminal law related issues:
Bobby v. Bies: Whether the holding of a state post-conviction hearing to determine the mental capacity of a capital defendant whose death sentence was affirmed before Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants, violates the Double Jeopardy clause where the issue of mental capacity has already been addressed at trial and on direct appeal.
Safford United School District #1 v. Redding: Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting a strip search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing prescription strength ibuprofen on campus in violation of school policy.
Nijhawan v. Mukasey: Whether the petitioner's conviction for mail, bank and wire fraud qualified as an aggravated felony under the immigration laws, the penalty for which is lifetime banishment from the country.
The other three cases are the following:
Forest Grove School District, Petitioner v. T. A.: Whether parents of a student who has never previously received special education services from a school district may be eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for reimbursement of private school tuition.
Cuomo v. The Clearing House Ass'n, L.L.C.,: Whether 12 USC § 484 and 12 CFR § 7.4000 prohibit measures taken by a state prosecutor to enforce state fair lending law against national banks by subjecting those entities to "visitorial powers."
U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York: Whether the 30-day time limit in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) for filing a notice of appeal, or the 60-day time limit in Rule 4(a)(1)(B), applies to a qui tam action under the False Claims Act.
Scotusblog provides links to the lower court opinions, petitions, oppositions, replies and amicus briefs. Briefing will be expedited so the cases may be ruled upon in this term.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in five cases today:
Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Company, Inc: Whether a judge's failure to recuse himself from a case in which he received substantial campaign donations from one of the parties violates the Due Process righs of the other party.
Yeager v. United States: Whether, under the Double Jeopardy Clause, the government may retry defendants acquitted of some charges on factually related counts for which the jury failed to reach a verdict.
Abuelhawa v. United States - Whether a person who uses a cell phone to buy drugs solely for personal use, which is a misdemeanor, can be charged with the separate crime of using a phone to facilitate the sale of drugs, which is a felony.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Senator Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-damand to cable subscribers.
Dean v. United States: Whether, under 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), the mere discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking, even if accidental, is subject to a 10-year sentencing enhancement.
Scotusblog provides links to all available briefs and lower court opinions.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases this morning.
In District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, the Court will consider whether a person may file an action under 42 USC 1983 or the Due Process Clause to obtain access to biological evidence for purposes of new DNA testing in a case in which his judgment is final and it appears that post-conviction remedies may be procedurally barred.
In Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, the Court will consider whether a seaman may recover punitive damages for the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.
Scotusblog provides links to be petitions, briefs in opposition, replies and amicus briefs.
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “certiorari”.