Today’s orders

Share

SECOND UPDATE, 4:50 p.m.: The briefs in all cases acted on now appear below the jump, including those missing earlier in Robertson v. U.S. ex rel. Watson.

The Court has granted certiorari in three cases, City of Ontario v. Quon (08-1332), Robertson v. U.S. ex rel. Watson (08-6261), and Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (09-60).  The Court has rewritten the question in 08-6261.  The Solicitor General was also invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in Thompson v. North American Stainless (09-291). The full order list is here. Cases granted certiorari:

Docket: 08-1332
Title: City of Ontario v. Quon
Issues: (1) Whether a SWAT team member has a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages transmitted on his SWAT pager, where the police department has an official no-privacy policy but a non-policymaking lieutenant announced an informal policy of allowing some personal use of the pagers; (2) Whether individuals who send text messages to a SWAT team member’s SWAT pager have a reasonable expectation that their messages will be free from review by the recipient’s government employer.

Docket: 08-6261
Title: Robertson v. U.S. ex rel. Watson
Issue: Limited by the Court to the following question: Whether an action for criminal contempt in a congressionally created court may constitutionally be brought in the name and pursuant to the power of a private person, rather than in the name and pursuant to the power of the United States.

Docket: 09-60
Title: Carachuri-Rosendo 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.

The case in which the Court has requested the views of the United States:

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?

Posted in: Everything Else

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY

Featured Articles