Petitions to Watch | Conference of 6.12.08
on May 28, 2008 at 2:21 pm
The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch†features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of June 12. 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. To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, including the lists for the upcoming conferences of May 29 and June 5, visit our archives here on SCOTUSwiki.
Conference of June 12, 2008
__________________
Docket: 07-81
Name: Exxon Mobil v. Doe
Issue: Whether the collateral order doctrine permits an immediate appeal of a denial of a motion to dismiss on political question grounds, where the State Department has expressed concern the litigation could adversely impact U.S. interests abroad.
- Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amicus curiae of the United States (recommending denial of certiorari)
__________________
Case name: Progress Energy, Inc. v. Taylor
Issue: Whether Department of Labor regulations preclude employees from waiving past claims, as opposed to future claims, under the Family Medical Leave Act. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner.)
- Opinion below (4th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Amicus brief of the Chamber of Commerce (in support of the petitioner)
- Amicus brief of the Equal Employment Advisory Council (in support of the petitioner)
- Amicus brief of the North Carolina Retail Merchants Association (in support of the petitioner)
- Amicus brief of the Society for Human Resource Management (in support of the petitioner)
- Amicus brief of the Association of Corporate Counsel (in support of the petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of the United States (recommending denial of certiorari)
- Supplemental brief for the petitioner
__________________
Case name: Cavel International, Inc. v. Madigan
Issue: Whether an
- Opinion below (7th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amicus curiae of Kingdom of Belgium (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of Livestock Marketing Association (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amici curiae of The American Quarter Horse Association (in support of petitioner)
__________________
Case name: Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al. and
Issue: Whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may not issue a permit for discharge of fill material otherwise subject to effluent limitations under Sections 301 or 306 of the Clean Water Act.
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (Coeur)
- Petition for certiorari (
- Brief of respondent Goldbelt, Inc. in support
- Brief of federal respondents in opposition
- Brief of respondent Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al. in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply (Coeur)
- Petitioner’s reply (
- Brief amici curiae of National Mining Association, et al. (in support of the petition)
- Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation (in support of the petition)
- Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. (in support of the petition)
__________________
Case name: Ashcroft v. Iqbal, et al. and Sawyer, et al. v. Iqbal
Issue: Whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, are entitled to qualified immunity against allegations they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
- Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (Federal government)
- Petition for certiorari (Sawyer, former Bureau of Prisons officials)
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply (Ashcroft)
- Petitioner’s reply (Sawyer)
- Brief amici curiae of former Attorney General William P. Barr, et al. (in support of the petition)
__________________
Case name: Dupuy, et al. v. McEwen
Issue: Whether the “safety plans†followed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services upon receiving allegations of child abuse violate parents’ Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment.
- Opinion below (7th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amici curiae of Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of Illinois State Bar Association (in support of the petitioner)
- Brief amici curiae of American Coalition for Fathers and Children, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
- Brief amici curiae of Psychoanalytic Association, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
- Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. (in support of the petitioner)
__________________
Case name: Baker v. Chisom
Issue: Whether, under 42 USC 1983, a complaint not naming the capacity in which a defendant is sued must be construed to name him in his official capacity, notwithstanding the course of proceedings establishing a contrary intent. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner)
- Opinion below (8th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name: Burke, et al. v.
Issue: Whether parents of a child identified as disabled under the IDEA can recover compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Rehabilitation Act for alleged retaliation.
- Opinion below (1st Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
__________________
Case name: Peake v. Sanders
Issue: Whether courts must presume the failure of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to give notice to benefits’ claimants to be prejudicial.
- Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition (respondent Woodrow F. Sanders)
- Brief in opposition (respondent Patricia D. Simmons)
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name: Knowles v. Mirzayance
Issue: Whether the defendant’s lawyer’s recommendation to withdraw an insanity plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel for purposes of federal habeas law.
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
__________________
