Petitions of the week
on Dec 19, 2019 at 9:13 am
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether a motorist’s assertion of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to a warrantless blood test may be used as evidence of guilt for the offense of driving under the influence, whether a levy that forces property owners to fund other individuals’ campaign donations implicates the First Amendment’s compelled-subsidy doctrine, and whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment.
The petitions of the week are below the jump:
Elster v. City of Seattle, Washington
19-608
Issues: (1) Whether a levy that forces property owners to fund other individuals’ campaign donations implicates the First Amendment’s compelled-subsidy doctrine; and (2) whether a compelled subsidy of speech should be examined under rational-basis review, as the decision below concluded, or whether a higher standard of review is appropriate.
Cisco Systems Inc. v. SRI International Inc.
19-619
Issue: Whether patent claims that recite only the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International.
Bell v. Pennsylvania
19-622
Issue: Whether a motorist’s assertion of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to a warrantless blood test may be used as evidence of guilt for the offense of driving under the influence.
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.
19-631
Issue: Whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.
Arizona v. Nunez-Diaz
19-645
Issues: (1) Whether the respondent, Hector Sebastion Nunez-Diaz, is categorically barred from establishing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington for a Padilla v. Kentucky / Lee v. United States claim because, as an unauthorized alien, he is without any legal right to remain in the United States; and (2) whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in finding Strickland prejudice, where inter alia there was no evidence that the respondent had a viable defense either to the criminal charges or deportation.
