Today’s Orders

This afternoon’s Order List is here. There were 6 granted cases.

Links to the cert. documents and Questions Presented in the 5 paid cases granted today are available after the jump. UPDATE: We’ve added the QP and opinion below in the pauper case granted, Burgess v. US.

Docket: 06-1666
Case name: Munaf v. Geren
Issue: Whether federal courts have jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition of a U.S. citizen detained by U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq pending a transfer to Iraqi authorities following a conviction in an Iraqi criminal court.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 07-208
Case name: Indiana v. Edwards
Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment grants a defendant found competent to stand trial the right to represent himself in a criminal proceeding.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Indiana)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of Ohio, et al. (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-312
Case name: Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.
Issue: Whether a state may tax a court-ordered transfer of property from a chapter 11 bankruptcy estate to a third-party purchaser of the bankrupt party’s assets.

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of Illinois, et al. (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-455
Case name: United States v. Ressam
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 1844(h)(2), which mandates 10 years in prison for carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony, requires the explosives to be carried “in relation to” the underlying felony.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 07-480
Case name: Huber v. Wal-Mart
Issue: Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, disabled employees must be reassigned to a vacant position for which they are qualified or merely be permitted to apply for such a position.

• Opinion below (8th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 06-11429
Case name: Burgess v. United States
Opinion Below: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

QP:

1. Whether the term “felony drug offense” as used in federal statutes requiring imposition of enhanced mandatory minimum 20 years’ imprisonment when drug offender has “prior conviction for a felony drug offense” must be read in pari materia with federal statutes defining both “felony” and “felony drug offense”, so as” to require imposition of minimum 20-year sentence only if prior drug conviction as both punishable by more “than one year in prison and characterized as a felony by controlling law.

2. When the court finds that a criminal statute is ambiguous, must it then turn to the rule of lenity to resolve ambiguity?