Today’s Orders

The Court has granted certiorari in the following four cases, and the briefs are now posted below.  The full order list is available here.

Docket: 08-1341
Title: United States v. Marcus
Issue: Whether the Second Circuit departed from the Court’s interpretation of Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by adopting as the appropriate standard for plain-error review of an alleged ex post facto violation whether there is any possibility that the defendant could have been convicted based exclusively on conduct that took place before the enactment of the statutes in question.

• Opinion below (2d Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

Docket: 08-1394
Title: Skilling v. United States
Issue: Whether the federal “honest services” fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, requires the government to prove that the defendant’s conduct was intended to achieve “private gain” rather than to advance the employer’s interests, and, if not, whether § 1346 is unconstitutionally vague. Whether the government must rebut the presumption of jury prejudice, which arose because of pretrial publicity and community impact of the alleged conduct, and, if so, whether the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no juror was actually prejudiced.

• Opinion below (5th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
  
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Docket: 09-38
Title: Health Care Service v. Pollitt
Issue: Whether the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8902(m)(1), preempts a state court lawsuit filed against a government contractor administering such benefits.

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

Docket: 09-5327
Title: Holland v. Florida
Issue: Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in denying equitable tolling to the defendant to excuse his late filing of his habeas petition, based on the conclusion that the late filing was due to “gross negligence” of counsel, while factors beyond “gross negligence” are required for equitable tolling; whether equitable tolling is available to toll the statute of limitation under the AEDPA.

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition