Petitions to Watch | Conference of 11.25.08

This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on November 25. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, including the list for the upcoming conference of November 14, visit our archives on SCOTUSwiki.

Conference of November 25, 2008

__________________

Docket: 08-196
Title: New Mexico v. Snell
Issue: Whether police must give Miranda warnings before questioning motorists detained in a patrol car at the scene of a car accident.

• Opinion below (Court of Appeals of New Mexico)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-223; 08-364
Title: United States v. McWane, Inc., et al.; McWane, Inc., et al. v. United States
Issue: Whether the “significant nexus” test in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Rapanos v. United States (2006) establishes the exclusive rule for determining whether particular streams are protected under the Clean Water Act.

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (08-223)
• Petition for certiorari (08-364)
• Brief in opposition (08-223)
• Brief in opposition (08-364)
• Petitioner’s reply (08-223)
• Petitioner’s reply (08-364)
• Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Home Builders (in support of petitioner in 08-223)
• Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation (in support of petitioner in 08-223)
• Brief amici curiae of Petitioners in No. 07-1512 (in support of petitioner in 08-223)
• Brief amicus curiae of American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. (in support of petitioner in 08-223)

__________________

Docket: 08-227
Title: Liddell v. United States
Issue: Whether, under New York v. Quarles (1984), police must give Miranda warnings before asking an arrested motorist whether his car, in which police discovered a firearm, contains other potentially dangerous items.

• Opinion below (8th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-240; 08-372
Title: Mac’s Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Company; Shell Oil Products Company v. Mac’s Shell Service
Issue: Under what circumstances may a service station operator bring suit against an oil refiner or distributor for “constructive termination” under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act.

• Opinion below (1st Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (08-240)
• Petition for certiorari (08-372)
• Brief in opposition (08-240)
• Brief in opposition (08-372)
• Petitioner’s reply (08-372)
• Brief amicus curiae of American Petroleum Institute (in support of petitioner in 08-372)

__________________

Docket: 08-245
Title: Kansas v. Lacey Rana Smith
Issue: Whether police violated the Fourth Amendment by asking a car passenger to consent to a search unrelated to the initial reason for the traffic stop.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Kansas)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-267
Title: United States v. Denedo
Issue: Whether a military appellate court has jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis filed by a former service member following a final court-martial conviction.

• Opinion below (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-293
Title: Splendid Shipping Sendirian Berhard v. Trans-Tec Asia
Issue: Whether a foreign supplier, by supplying fuel to a foreign-flagged vessel in a foreign port under an agreement that United States law applied to the transaction, may obtain a maritime lien under the Federal Maritime Lien Act on the vessel docked in an American port.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of Malaysia

__________________

Docket: 08-368
Title: al-Marri v. Pucciarelli
Issue: Whether Congress, in passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, authorized the indefinite military detention of a legal immigrant seized on domestic soil whom the government alleged to have conspired with al Qaeda to carry out attacks against the United States.

• Opinion below (4th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of William N. Eskridge, Jr., Daniel A. Farber, and Eric Lane (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Professors of Constitutional Law and of the Federal Courts (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Former Federal Judges, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of The Constitution Project, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Retired Military Officers (in support of petitioner)

__________________