This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that involve, among other things, challenges to Arizona voting policies, such as its out-of-precinct policy, which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, and its ballot-collection law, which permits only certain people to handle another person’s completed early ballot; whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act compels states to authorize any voting practice that would be used disproportionately by racial minorities, even if existing voting procedures are race-neutral; and whether a patent owner required to license its standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a proceeding seeking the equitable relief of specific performance.
The petitions of the week are below the jump:
Actavis Holdco U.S. Inc. v. Connecticut
19-1010
Issue: Whether, contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), the Supreme Court’s decisions and the decisions of five U.S. courts of appeals, a district court may compel a party that has not engaged in discovery-related misconduct to produce documents that are neither relevant nor responsive.
American Institute for International Steel Inc. v. United States
19-1177
Issue: Whether Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, is facially unconstitutional on the ground that it lacks any boundaries that confine the president’s discretion to impose tariffs on imported goods and, therefore, constitutes an improper delegation of legislative authority and a violation of the principle of separation of powers established by the Constitution.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
19-1257
Issues: (1) Whether Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and (2) whether Arizona’s ballot-collection law, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment.
Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee
19-1258
Issues: (1) Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act compels states to authorize any voting practice that would be used disproportionately by racial minorities, even if existing voting procedures are race-neutral and offer all voters an equal opportunity to vote; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit correctly held that Arizona’s ballot-harvesting prohibition was tainted by discriminatory intent even though the legislators were admittedly driven by partisan interests and by supposedly “unfounded” concerns about voter fraud.
TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
19-1269
Issue: Whether a patent owner required to license its standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a proceeding seeking the equitable relief of specific performance.
LaTurner v. United States
19-1279
Issues: (1) Whether states that have exercised their historic power to escheat title to abandoned U.S. savings bonds may redeem those bonds as successor owners, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has concluded, or whether federal law preempts such redemption, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held below; and (2) whether U.S. Department of the Treasury regulations requiring presentation of a bond serial number may operate as a time bar to prevent a bond owner who has lost that serial number from ever redeeming that bond.
Lea v. United States
19-1285
Issues: (1) Whether the federal statute, regulations and contractual provisions governing the transfer and redemption of U.S. savings bonds preempt the state of Arkansas from obtaining ownership of matured but unredeemed bonds through a statute providing for the escheat of title to the state; (2) whether the federal statute, regulations and contractual provisions governing the transfer and redemption of U.S. savings bonds require the U.S. Department of the Treasury to redeem matured savings bonds that are owned by a state pursuant to a valid judgment of escheatment but that the state cannot identify by serial number without Treasury’s assistance; and (3) whether the interpretation of federal law adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit below results in an uncompensated taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY