Petitions to Watch | Conference of 11.30.07

The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of November 30. 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 30, 2007
__________________

Docket: 06-1204
Case name: Republic of the Philippines, et al. v. Pimentel, et al.
Issue: Whether, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19(a) and (b), a court must dismiss an interpleader action involving a foreign country that has successfully claimed sovereign immunity.

• Opinion below (Ninth Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of the United States (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-101
Case name: Finlayson-Green v. Keisler
Issue: Whether the 180-day deadline to file a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order is jurisdictional or, alternatively, may be tolled based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

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

__________________

Docket: 07-137
Case name: Baranowski v. Hart
Issue: Whether a Texas prison regulation requiring the presence of a Rabbi or prison-approved outside volunteer to lead Sabbath services constitutes a “substantial burden” under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

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

__________________

Docket: 07-261
Case name: Life Partners v. Morrison
Issue: Whether viatical settlements, involving the sale of life insurance policies to third parties, constitute the “business of insurance” under the McCarran-Ferguson Act and are thus insulated from challenge under the Dormant Commerce Clause.

• Opinion below (Fourth Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition (Morrison in his official capacity)
• Brief in opposition (State of Virginia)
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of 60/Plus Association (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-266
Case name: Perfect 10, Inc., v. CCBill LLC, et al.
Issue: Whether trademark and right of publicity claims filed under state law fall within the immunity exception of the Communications Decency Act.

• Opinion below (Ninth Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
  
• Amicus brief of the Screen Actors Guild (in support of the petitioner)
• Amicus brief of CMG Worldwide, Inc. (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-284
Case name: Maryland v. Paulino
Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to search for drugs hidden between a suspect’s buttocks cheeks during an arrest.

• Opinion below (Court of Appeals of Maryland)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of Oklahoma, et al. (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-308
Case name: United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company
Issue: Whether a coal company that did not meet the Tucker Act statute of limitations may seek a tax refund (with interest) directly under the Export Clause of the Constitution. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the respondent.)

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

__________________

Docket: 07-420
Case name: Village of Glendale v. Pagan
Issue: Whether the First Amendment requires municipalities to justify ordinances barring placement of “For Sale” signs in car windows by presenting evidence beyond their own belief in the need for regulation.

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

__________________

Docket: 07-439
Case name: McDermott v. Boehner
Issue: Whether, after Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), the First Amendment prohibits application of the federal wiretapping statute to a U.S. Representative who played an illegally recorded conversation involving other members of Congress to the news media.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of Representatives Howard Berman, Barney Frank, Zoe Lofgren and George Miller (in support of the petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 07-440
Case name: Rothgery v. Gillespie County (Tex.)
Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches to defendants brought before a magistrate and jailed pending posting of bond if prosecutors were not involved in the arrest or court appearance.

• Opinion below (Fifth Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of 22 law professors (in support of the petitioner)

__________________