Notable Petitions

An interesting new petition, Bond v. United States, asserts that a criminal defendant convicted under a federal statute has standing to challenge her conviction on the ground that, as applied to her, the statute exceeds the federal government’s enumerated powers and is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.

Two new jurisdictional statements were recently filed from a federal district court in California.  The statements, arising in cases brought by Governor Schwarzenegger (09-1233) and Republican state legislators (09-1232), challenge the court’s recent order to release 46,000 state prison inmates due to over-crowding.  One of the major arguments is that the court failed to adequately consider “any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system.”  [Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the state legislators in No. 09-1232.]

In addition, two new petitions were recently filed on statutory questions: Jerez v. Sanchez on the retroactivity of a provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and Allied Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Line Construction Benefit Fund on the rights of employee benefit plans to sue under ERISA.

All four cases mentioned above (and their questions presented) appear after the jump.

Title: Jerez-Sanchez v. Holder
Docket: 09-1211
Issues: (1) Whether Section 304(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act is inapplicable to pre-enactment convictions of all immigrants whose convictions predate IIRIRA’s enactment, or whether the section’s retroactivity instead (a) turns on an immigrant’s subjective reliance; (b) turns on objectively reasonable reliance; or (c) is categorically inapplicable to convictions obtained at trial; and (2) whether the presumption against retroactivity applies only when individuals can establish either subjective or objective reliance on prior law.

• Opinion below (2d Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Title: Allied Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Line Construction Benefit Fund
Docket: 09-1220
Issue: (1) Whether, given that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act grants employee benefit plans status as entities that can “sue and be sued” but grants a right of action to sue to enforce the plan only to a “participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary,” the Seventh Circuit erred when it allowed an employee benefit plan to enforce a plan as a “fiduciary”; and (2) whether the same court erred when it found that the employer’s conduct alone manifested its assent to an agreement to contribute to employee benefit plans even though the employer had not signed a written agreement, as required by the Labor Management Relations Act.

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Title: Bond v. United States
Docket: 09-1227
Issue: Whether a criminal defendant convicted under a federal statute has standing to challenge her conviction on grounds that, as applied to her, the statute is beyond the federal government’s enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.

• Opinion below (3d Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Title: California State Republican Legislator Intervenors v. Plata; Schwarzenegger v. Plata
Docket: 09-1232; 09-1233
Issues: (1) Whether the three-judge court below properly determined that crowding was the “primary cause” of continuing violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights to adequate health care, and that no remedy existed other than issuance of a Prisoner Release Order pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626; (2) whether the system-wide Prisoner Release Orders issued by the three-judge court are “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and [are] the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right” in compliance with the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); and (3) whether the same court properly gave “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system” in ordering a reduction in population of approximately 46,000 inmates.

• Opinion below (United States District Courts for the Eastern District and the Northern District of California)
• Jurisdictional statement (09-1232)
• Jurisdictional statement (09-1233)

[Disclosure: Akin Gump is involved in No. 09-1232.]