Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that involve, among other things, whether an officer who has consent to “get inside” a house but instead destroys it from the outside is entitled to qualified immunity in the absence of case law addressing those precise facts, whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume an applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates a withholding-of-removal application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination, and whether prior salary is “[an]other factor other than sex” under the Equal Pay Act, which permits employers to pay men and women different wages for the same work.

The petitions of the week are below the jump:

West v. Winfield
19-899
Issue: Whether an officer who has consent to “get inside” a house but instead destroys it from the outside is entitled to qualified immunity in the absence of precisely factually on-point case law.

Baley v. United States
19-1134
Issue: Whether, against the legal backdrop of Congress’ and the Supreme Court’s recognition of the primacy of state law to determine, quantify and administer water rights, a federal court may deem federal agency regulatory action under the Endangered Species Act to constitute the adjudication and administration of water rights for tribal purposes.

Ng v. United States
19-1145
Issues: (1) Whether the generic term “organization” in 18 U.S.C. § 666 should be construed to include quasi-sovereign public international entities like the United Nations; and (2) whether the official-act requirement under McDonnell v. United States applies to Section 666 and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prosecutions like this one and, if so, whether it was satisfied here.

Suzuki v. Deedy
19-1153
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in affirming the district court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction to adjudicate a case brought by a state-court loser complaining of injuries caused by the judgment rendered by the state’s highest court before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting the court to review and reject that judgment; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit erred in concluding that the state trial court’s decision not to charge the jury on reckless manslaughter–a lesser-included offense of murder for which the defendant stood trial–constituted an acquittal of that offense.

Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips
19-1154
Issues: (1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law contract rule that singles out arbitration agreements for invalidation because they were signed by family members or other persons for the benefit of the third-party residents now bringing the claims; (2) whether the FAA preempts a state-law contract rule singling out arbitration agreements by imposing a “mutuality of obligation” requirement on them that is not a requirement for other contracts; and (3) whether the FAA preempts a state-law contract rule that singles out arbitration agreements due to lack of “mutuality of assent” because they were not signed by the party seeking to enforce them, when Arkansas law allows other contracts to be valid and enforceable without a signature based on other factors including actual performance.

Barr v. Dai
19-1155
Issues: (1) Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume that an asylum applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates an application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination; and (2) whether the court of appeals violated the remand rule as set forth in INS v. Ventura when it determined in the first instance that the respondent, Ming Dai, was eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal.

Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez
19-1156
Issue: Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume an applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates a withholding-of-removal application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination.

Airbus Helicopters Inc. v. Riggs
19-1158
Issue: Whether a private party is “acting under” a federal officer and may remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), when it is carrying out duties formally and expressly delegated by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
19-1166
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioners in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.
Issue: Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires dismissal of an Administrative Procedure Act action challenging a federal agency’s compliance with statutory requirements governing federal agency decisions, for failure to join a non-federal entity that would benefit from the challenged agency action and cannot be joined without consent.

Yovino v. Rizo
19-1176
Issue: Whether prior salary is “[an]other factor other than sex” under the Equal Pay Act, which 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.”