John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases.
Good afternoon race fans, and welcome to the 108th running of the Relist Derby. Don your hat, grab a julep, and prepare to witness the most exciting two minutes on the internet.
If you’re looking to squander serious cash at long odds, you’ve come to the right place. Our dance with fate last week has paid off thus far. Both grants this week, Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 13-684 (asking how a borrower exercises his right to rescind a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act), and Yates v. United States, 13-7451 (involving whether Sarbanes-Oxley’s “anti-shredding” prohibition can be used to go after small fry) were first-time relists last week. As the Court’s consecutive “relisted grant” streak extends to fourteen, the Court continues to enter all its provisional grants in the relist stakes: whether they’re doing so to double-check for vehicle problems or because they don’t want to miss out on our jokes is anyone’s guess. If this trend continues, it could expand our readership to the high single digits.
With Jesinoski’s grant, its two companions, Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., 13-705, and Takushi v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 13-884, are now stuck as holds. They will take an intense holiday and await the resolution of Jesinoski for their next hoppertunity at a grant.
Meanwhile, two other contenders were denied their bid for social inclusion. One-time relists Espinoza v. United States, 13-7909 (whether an offense with a mens rea of recklessness triggers a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause), and Dykes v. South Carolina, 13-8037 (involving a constitutional challenge to a state law imposing GPS monitoring on released sex offenders), were both put out to pasture.
The rest of our field from last week is back for another run for the roses. Any takers for our favorite dark horse, Ryan v. Hurles, 12-1472? That case, which still addresses whether it is per se unreasonable for a state not to provide an evidentiary hearing on a judicial-bias claim, pocketed relist number twenty. Two other veterans upped their medal count to eight relists since the Court received their records: Tolan v. Cotton, 13-551, a qualified immunity case involving a man shot after police made a mistake typing in a license plate, and Martinez v. Illinois, 13-5967, which asks if jeopardy attaches when a jury is sworn after the prosecution refuses to participate in the case. Thomas v. Nugent, 13-862, which was originally rescheduled, has now been relisted twice. This qualified immunity case addresses whether it was clearly established that a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment when he tases a handcuffed but non-cooperative suspect eight times. The Second Amendment case Drake v. Jerejian, 13-827, a constitutional challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit laws, also picked up its second relist. Expect a photo finish from two other double relists angling for the Triple Crown. The first is Federal National Mortgage Association v. Sundquist, 13-852, involving the power of a state to restrict an out-of-state national bank’s exercise of its fiduciary powers in that state. The second is T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 13-975, which asks what satisfies the Communication Act’s requirement that an application denial be “in writing.”
The stable of new relists this week is wicked strong. Pole position belongs to state-on-top habeas case Beard v. Aguilar, 13-677. The Ninth Circuit, looking to remind the Sixth that they are still the favorite to have grants of habeas overturned, granted habeas relief to Mr. Aguilar after determining that the California Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Brady v. Maryland in a case involving alleged dog sniff errors. The Derby’s host circuit has a new entrant in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 13-1010. The petition alleges that the Sixth Circuit is on the wrong side of two distinct circuit splits relating to collectively bargained retirement plans – a subject so dull it could make your uncle sigh.
Finally, the Court has tossed us a commanding curve with a group of cases that are not conventional relists. These cases were on for various Conferences, but — before their appointed dates even arrived — the Court let them skip straight to the Preakness and rescheduled the lot of them for the May 15 Conference. The lead case should be familiar: James v. United States, 13-632. The question presented in that case is whether forensic pathology reports are testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes. As James’s reply brief notes (see p.10), there are at least a baker’s dozen of petitions raising the same issue. The Court appears to have rescheduled the cases to consider the lot together.
Another group of cases out of Texas will be joining James at the May 15 Conference: Luna v. Texas, 13-994, Ibarra v. Texas, 13-999, and Gomez v. Texas, 13-1036. Each of these cases asks whether Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively to ineffective assistance of counsel cases alleging “affirmative misadvice.” While the rescheduling suggests the issue has the Court’s attention, in only one of the cases (Gomez) has the state been required to file a reply.
That’s all for this edition. See you in the winner’s circle next week, after Harry’s holiday.
Thanks to Kentucky Colonel Dmitry Slavin for compiling and drafting this update.
[page]12-1472[/page]
(relisted after the September 30, October 11, October 18, November 1, November 8, November 15, November 26, December 6, December 13, January 10, January 17, January 24, February 21, February 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 18 and April 25 Conferences)
[page]13-551[/page]
(relisted after the February 21, February 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 18 and April 25 Conferences)
[page]13-5967[/page]
(relisted after the February 21, February 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 18 and April 25 Conferences)
[page]13-862[/page]
(relisted after the March 28, April 18, and April 25 Conferences)
[page]13-827[/page]
(relisted after the April 18 and April 25 Conferences)
[page]13-852[/page]
(relisted after the April 18 and April 25 Conferences)
[page]13-975[/page]
(relisted after the April 18 and April 25 Conferences)
[page]13-677[/page]
(relisted after the April 25 Conference)
[page]13-1010[/page]
(relisted after the April 25 Conference)
[page]13-632[/page]
(relisted after the April 25 Conference)
[page]13-994[/page]
(relisted before the April 25 Conference)
[page]13-999[/page]
(relisted before the April 25 Conference)
[page]13-1036[/page]
(rescheduled before the April 25 Conference)
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY
