Petitions of the week

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that ask the court to decide, among other things, whether a petitioner who has no available remedy in habeas, through no lack of diligence on his part, is barred byHeck v. Humphreyfrom pursuing aSection 1983claim challenging the validity or duration of his incarceration and whether an arbitrator may compel class arbitration without finding actual consent, and instead based only on a finding that the agreement does not unambiguously prohibit class arbitration and should be construed against the drafter.

Thepetitions of the weekare below the jump:

Laut v. United States
19-1362
Issues: (1) What test, if any, should be used to determine whether a constructive amendment impacted a defendants substantial rights underFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b); and (2) what showing is required to determine whether a constructive amendment is plain error under Rule 52(b).

Hueso v. Barnhart
19-1365
Issue: Whether, notwithstanding the savings clause of28 U.S.C. 2255(e) which allows a prisoner whose claim for postconviction relief is otherwise barred to petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the Section 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention an individual serving a wrongfully enhanced sentence is barred from obtaining relief, solely because the wrongfulness of the sentence was established retroactively by a court of appeals decision.

Olson v. Amatuzio
19-1380
Issue: Whether a petitioner who has no available remedy in habeas, through no lack of diligence on his part, is barred byHeck v. Humphreyfrom pursuing aSection 1983claim challenging the validity or duration of his incarceration.

Sterling Jewelers Inc. v. Jock
19-1382
Issue: Whether an arbitrator may compel class arbitration binding the parties and absent class members without finding actual consent, and instead based only on a finding that the agreement does not unambiguously prohibit class arbitration and should be construed against the drafter.

Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water
19-1388
Issue: WhetherTrans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison, which stated that employers suffer an undue hardship in accommodating an employees religious exercise whenever doing so would require them to bear more than a de minimis cost, misinterprets42 U.S.C. 2000e(j) which specifies that religion includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employees or prospective employees religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employers business and should be overruled.