Today’s orders list is now available here. The Court granted certiorari in six cases: Alvarez v. Smith (08-351) (limited to question 1), Salazar, Sec of Int. v. Buono (08-472), Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (08-604), Padilla v. Kentucky (08-651), Smith v. Spisak (08-724), and Johnson v. US (08-6925) (limited to questions 1 and 2). The filings in these cases can be found after the jump
Docket: 08-351
Title: Alvarez v. Smith
Issue: Whether local law enforcement agencies may seize and retain custody indefinitely of personal property without judicial or administrative review of the lawfulness of the continued detention of the property.
__________________
Docket: 08-472
Title: Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono
Issue: Â Whether an individual has Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and if an Act of Congress directing the land be transferred to a private entity is a permissible accommodation.
__________________
Docket: 08-604
Title: Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen General Committee of Adjustment, Central Region
Issue: Whether the Railway Labor Act authorizes courts to set aside final arbitration awards for alleged violations of due process by the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and if the Board can adopt a new, retroactive interpretation of the standards governing its arbitration proceedings.
__________________
Docket: 08-651
Title: Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel require a criminal defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client that pleading guilty to an aggravated felony will trigger mandatory, automatic deportation, and if that misadvice about deportation induces a guilty plea, can that misadvice amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and warrant setting aside the guilty plea?
__________________
Docket: 08-724
Title: Smith v. Spisak
Issue:Â Did the Sixth Circuit contravene AEDPA by improperly extending Mills v. Maryland?
__________________
Docket: 08-6925
Title: Johnson v. U.S.
Issue:Â Whether under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a “violent felony,” even when the state held that offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY