Petitions to Watch | Conference of 11.20.07

BEN WINOGRAD NOV 9, 2007 11:00 AM

The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of November 20. 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.

Conference of November 20, 2007
__________________

Docket: 06-939
Case name: Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. Brown
Issue: Whether the National Labor Relations Act preempts a California law barring private employers from using state grant or program funds to influence union organizing campaigns.

• Opinion below (Ninth Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of Associated Builders and Contractors of California (in support of petitioner)
• Amicus brief of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Amicus brief of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (in support of petitioner)
• Amicus brief of the United States (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-77
Case name: Riley v. Kennedy
Issue: Whether states subject to Voting Rights Act pre-clearance requirements must receive Justice Department approval before implementing decisions of its highest court striking down previously pre-cleared state laws. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the respondent.)

• Opinions below (M.D. Ala., Alabama Supreme Court)
• Jurisdictional statement
• Motion to dismiss or affirm

__________________

Docket: 07-100
Name: Harris County (Tex.) v. Staley
Issue: Whether a prevailing party in district court is entitled to attorney’s fees if the case becomes moot pending appeal.

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

__________________

Docket: 07-130
Case name: Edwards v. Kenyon
Issue: Whether a police officer may properly be denied qualified immunity against an excessive force claim if an en banc panel divides equally as to whether the conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

• Opinions below (Eighth Circuit, E.D. Ark)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 07-211
Case name: Sanchez v. San Diego County
Issue: Whether requiring suspicionless home searches as a condition of welfare eligibility violates the Fourth Amendment.

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

__________________

Docket: 07-212
Case name: Wright v. Van Patten
Issue: Whether, in light of the Court’s decision in Carey v. Musladin (2006), a defendant whose lawyers participates in a plea hearing via speakerphone is entitled to habeas relief.

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

__________________

Docket: 07-360
Case name: Smith v. Frye
Issue: Whether the Court’s decision on political firings in Elrod v. Burns (1976) protects an at-will employee working for a state judge terminated after her son mounted a candidacy against the incumbent clerk.

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

__________________

Docket: 07-362
Case name: Teen Ranch, Inc. v. Udow
Issue: Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding a faith-based treatment center from a program for placement of troubled adolescents. (Click here for Lyle’s post on the petition.)

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

__________________

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY