Breaking News

Petitions to Watch | Conference of 12.11.09

By
on Dec 11, 2009 at 9:31 am
Share

This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference today.  As always, it lists the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.  Links to all previous editions are available in our SCOTUSwiki archive.

Docket: 09-60; 09-203
Title: Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder; Escobar v. Holder
Issue: Whether a person convicted under state law for simple drug possession (a federal misdemeanor) has been “convicted” of an “aggravated felony” on the theory that he could have been prosecuted for recidivist simple possession (a federal felony), even though there was no charge or finding of a prior conviction in his prosecution for possession.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a
lawful permanent resident who has been “convicted”
of an “aggravated felony” is ineligible to seek cancellation
of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3). The courts
of appeals have divided 4-2 on the following question
presented by this case:
Whether a person convicted under state law for
simple drug possession (a federal law misdemeanor)
has been “convicted” of an “aggravated felony” on the
theory that he could have been prosecuted for recidivist
simple possession (a federal law felony), even
though there was no charge or finding of a prior conviction
in his prosecution for possession.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a

lawful permanent resident who has been “convicted”
of an “aggravated felony” is ineligible to seek cancellation
of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3). The courts
of appeals have divided 4-2 on the following question
presented by this case:
Whether a person convicted under state law for
simple drug possession (a federal law misdemeanor)
has been “convicted” of an “aggravated felony” on the
theory that he could have been prosecuted for recidivist
simple possession (a federal law felony), even
though there was no charge or finding of a prior conviction
in his prosecution for possession.

For 09-60:

For 09-203:

Docket: 09-167; 09-182
Title: Scrushy v. United States; Siegelman v. United States
Issue: Whether petitioners’ convictions for Hobbs Act extortion are valid based on an implied agreement to exchange campaign contributions for specific official action, rather than an “explicit” agreement as required by the Supreme Court in McCormick v. United States (1991).

Docket: 09-227
Title: Rasul v. Myers
Issues: (1) Whether the D.C. Circuit erred in failing to reach the question whether detainees at Guantanamo have the constitutional right not to be tortured in light of the Supreme Court’s vacatur of the D.C. Circuit’s previous decision in this case that detainees have no constitutional rights? (2) Whether the same court erred in holding that petitioners’ claim for religious abuse and humiliation at Guantanamo was not actionable under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000bb, et seq., because they are not “persons”?  (3) Whether the court further erred in holding that respondents are entitled to qualified immunity because petitioners’ right not to be tortured was not “clearly established” at the time of their detention?

Docket: 09-259
Title: Metro Lights, LLC v. City of Los Angeles
Issues: (1) Whether this Court should reexamine Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981), with respect to First Amendment constraints on governmental regulation of commercial signs; (2) Whether Los Angeles’s selective and underinclusive ban on commercial signs violates the First Amendment.

Docket: 09-285
Title: Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, LLC
Issue: Whether section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 363, may be used as a “side door” to reorganize a debtor’s financial affairs without adherence to the creditor protections provided in other parts of chapter 11.

Docket: 09-291
Title: Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP
Issue: Is a third party afforded protection under the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), based solely upon his association with an employee who has engaged in protected activity?

Docket: 09-315
Title: Busch v. Marple Newton School District
Issue: Whether a public school may, consistent with the First Amendment, engage in viewpoint discrimination of invited speech based solely on the “reasonableness” of the restriction, rather than a compelling interest.

Case involving lawyers from Akin Gump or Howe & Russell (listed without regard to likelihood of being granted):

Docket: 09-244
Title: United States v. Bowden
Issue: Whether the notice requirements of 21 U.S.C. 851(a) — providing that no defendant may be sentenced to an enhanced statutory penalty for a drug offense based on prior drug convictions unless the government files and serves an information “stating in writing the previous convictions to be relied upon” — are “jurisdictional,” such that they must be noticed on appeal or collateral review regardless of whether the defendant preserved the claim in the district court.

[Akin Gump represents the respondent]

Other petitions from earlier editions of Petitions to Watch were relisted for the December 11 conference:

Posted in Everything Else

Tags: