Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether federal courts have the authority to impose partial filing fees on habeas petitioners, whether a federal removal statute is unconstitutional under the suspension clause as applied to the respondent, whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years, and whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The petitions of the week are below the jump:

7 West 57th Street Realty Company, LLC v. Citigroup Inc.
19-148
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.
Issue: Whether an antitrust plaintiff with a direct privity relationship to a price-fixer has antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act when it was injured by its participation in a market that was foreseeably affected by the defendants’ anticompetitive manipulation of a directly related market.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
19-161
Issue: Whether, as applied to the respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the suspension clause.

Samarripa v. Kizziah
19-164
Issue: Whether federal courts have the authority to impose partial filing fees on habeas petitioners.

Remington Arms Co. v. Soto
19-168
Issue: Whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc.
19-177
Issue: Whether – when in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc., the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bars enforcement of a congressional directive that required the respondents, U.S.-based organizations that receive federal funds to fight HIV/AIDS abroad, to “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” as a condition of accepting those funds – the First Amendment further bars enforcement of that directive with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with the respondents.

United States v. Briggs
19-108
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.

United States v. Collins
19-184
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.