Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that involve, among other things, the test that determines whether someone is intellectually disabled for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, whether the prosecution violates the Fifth Amendments self-incrimination clause when it uses a criminal defendants post-arrest, pre-Miranda-warning silence as evidence of guilt in its case-in-chief, and whether Medicaid recipients have a private right of action under42 U.S.C. 1983and42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(23)to challenge a states determination that a specific provider is not qualified to provide certain medical services.

Thepetitions of the week are below the jump:

Baker v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
19-1186
Issues: (1) Whether Medicaid recipients have a private right of action under42 U.S.C. 1983and42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(23)to challenge a states determination that a specific provider is not qualified to provide certain medical services; and (2) what framework properly decides whether a statute creates a private right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
19-1189
Issue: Whether28 U.S.C. 1447(d)permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district courts order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute,28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute,28 U.S.C. 1443.

Ohio v. Ford
19-1191
Issue: What test determines whether someone is intellectually disabled for purposes of the Eighth Amendment.

Kuang v. Department of Defense
19-1194
Issues: (1) Whether courts can evade their constitutional and statutory duty to review military decisions under the so-called Mindestest, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision inMindes v. Seamen, or whether claims seeking injunctive relief against the military are reviewable so long as they do not present a nonjusticiable political question or otherwise fall outside the courts subject-matter jurisdiction; and (2) whether a Department of Defense policy that requires all legal permanent resident enlisteesbut not their U.S.- citizen counterpartsto suffer unjustified delays before beginning their military careers is judicially reviewable.

Palacios-Solis v. United States
19-1195
Issue: Whether the prosecution violates the Fifth Amendments self-incrimination clause when it uses a criminal defendants post-arrest, pre-Miranda-warning silence as evidence of guilt in its case-in-chief.