Petitions to Watch | Conference of 3.14.08
on Mar 3, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch†features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of March 14. As always, the list reflects the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.
Issues raised in the current list of petitions include whether individuals forced to engage in persecution are ineligible to receive asylum, whether crime lab reports are “testimonial†under the Sixth Amendment, whether the dormant commerce clause applies to Puerto Rico, and how much information the government must disclose to courts reviewing decisions of CSRTs at
Conference of March 14, 2008
__________________
Case name: Henry v. Bureau of Customs and Immigration Enforcement
Issue: Whether, for purposes of mandatory deportation, a “crime of violence,†which under federal law includes a crime that involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used “in the course of committing the offense,†means that force may be necessary to complete the offense or that force may eventually be used while committing the offense.
- Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
__________________
Case name: Neguise v. Mukasey
Issue: Whether the provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that prohibits the granting of asylum to individuals found to have themselves engaged in persecution applies to those who were compelled to do so by threats of deaths or torture.
- Opinion below (5th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name: Melendez-Diaz v.
Issue: Whether a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is “testimonial†evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington (2004). (Disclosure: Akin Gump is co-counsel for the petitioner.)
- Opinion below (Appeals Court of Massachusetts)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Amicus brief of Professor Pamela R. Metzger, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
- Amicus brief of Professor Richard D. Friedman (in support of the petitioner)
__________________
Case name: Aguayo v. Geren
Issue: Whether the military may apply a stricter standard to agnostic applicants for conscientious objector status than to religious applicants.
- Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Amicus brief of the Center on Conscience and War (in support of the petitioner)
__________________
Case name:
Issue: Whether, under the Lanham Act, Burger King met prudential standing requirements to bring a false advertising claim against McDonald’s for fraud involved in various promotional games.
- Opinion below (11th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name:
Issue: Whether a racial minority group that constitutes less than 50% of a proposed district’s population can state a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. (Disclosure: Akin Gump filed the amicus brief of the NAACP in support of the petitioner.)
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of the Honorable Vernon Sykes and Honorable Roger Corbin (in support of the petitioner)
- Amicus brief of the League of Women Voters of the United States (in support of the petitioner)
- Amicus brief of Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and Ohio (in support of the petitioner)
- Amicus brief of the NAACP, Cindy Moore, Milford Farrior, and Mary Jordan (in support of the petitioner)
__________________
Case name: Puerto Rican Association of Beer Importers, Inc. v.
Issue: Whether the dormant commerce clause and dormant foreign commerce clause apply to
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name: Pearson v. Callahan
Issue: Whether, for qualified immunity purposes, police officers may enter a home without a warrant on the theory that the owner consented to the entry by previously permitting an undercover informant into the home.
- Opinion below (10th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name: Graham v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
Issue: Whether a district court order remanding an ERISA disability-benefits claim on grounds the initial determination was arbitrary and capricious is an immediately appealable final decision.
- Opinion below (10th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
__________________
Case name: Waddington v. Sarausad
Issue: Whether, on federal habeas review, courts must accept state court determinations that jury instructions fully and correctly set out state law with regard to accomplice liability.
__________________
Case name: Vaden v. Discover Bank
Issue: Whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, a suit seeking to enforce a state-law arbitration obligation arises under federal law if the petition to compel itself raises no federal question but the dispute sought to be arbitrated involves federal law.
- Opinion below (4th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name:
Issue: Whether, under the Sixth Amendment, a child’s report of sexual abuse to a hospital counselor is “testimonial†and thus subject to cross-examination if the interview serves both therapeutic and investigatory purposes.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of Missouri, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
- Amicus brief of the National District Attorney’s Association (in support of the petitioner)
__________________
Case name:
Issue: Whether, under Apprendi v.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name:
Issue: Whether time unionized workers spent donning and doffing protective equipment was excluded from mandatory compensation under section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Disclosure: Kevin of Howe & Russell represents the petitioner.)
- Opinion below (11th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name: Microsoft Corp. v. Novell, Inc.
Issue: Whether a plaintiff who does not participate in the allegedly restrained market but who meets the test under Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters (1983) has standing to sue under federal antitrust laws.
- Opinion below (4th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name: Gates v. Bismullah
Issue: Whether, under the Detainee Treatment Act, the record for D.C. Circuit review of an determination by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal consists of the material presented to and considered by the CSRT, or all material reasonably available to the government bearing on whether the detainee is an enemy combatant.
__________________
