Petitions to watch | Conference of June 22
on Jun 21, 2017 at 11:47 am
In its conference of June 22, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the just-compensation clause prohibits a legislature from limiting how just compensation for a taking is calculated and whether the just-compensation clause allows the jury to value the fee interest taken as if it were still encumbered by a discontinued highway easement; and whether the anti-retaliation provision for “whistleblowers” in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 extends to individuals who have not reported alleged misconduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission and thus fall outside the act’s definition of “whistleblower.”
Issues: (1) Whether the just-compensation clause prohibits a legislature from limiting how just compensation for a taking is calculated; and (2) whether the just-compensation clause allows the jury to value the fee interest taken as if it were still encumbered by a discontinued highway easement.
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred by creating a presumption of competency for all U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical evaluators, (including physician assistants, nurses and other non-physician health practitioners) to provide an expert opinion on any medical issue, thereby placing the burden on disabled veteran claimants, most of whom are pro se and many of whom suffer “from very significant psychiatric and physical disabilities,” to rebut the presumption by raising a competency objection, by ascertaining evidence of the evaluator’s lack of qualifications, and then by articulating specific reasons in support of the competency challenge.
Issue: Whether the anti-retaliation provision for “whistleblowers” in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 extends to individuals who have not reported alleged misconduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission and thus fall outside the act’s definition of “whistleblower.”
Issue: Whether a prisoner who claims that he was charged with misconduct in retaliation for activity protected by the First Amendment may prevail on his claim when he was found guilty of the misconduct in a constitutionally adequate proceeding.
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Nevada’s statute authorizing nonjudicial foreclosure of association liens, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 1116.3116 et seq., was facially unconstitutional under the due process clause for not requiring direct notice to junior lienholders, when the only state action involved was the enactment of the statute regulating the private sale.
Issue: Whether a state court can enforce a rule that Brady v. Maryland does not apply to impeachment evidence when the Supreme Court has held that Brady does apply to impeachment evidence.
Issue: Whether a state violates the 14th Amendment by denying married same-sex couples the same right afforded to married opposite-sex couples under state law to have the name of the birth mother’s spouse entered as the second parent on their child’s birth certificate.
Issue: Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
Issue: Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief from the longstanding federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), based on their as-applied Second Amendment claim that their criminal offenses and other particular circumstances do not warrant a firearms disqualification.
Issue: Whether, as used in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(B), the term “punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less” means “capable of being punished by a term of imprisonment of two years or less,” or “subject to a term of imprisonment of two years or less.”
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.
