| Name |
Counsel
of Record |
Certiorari To |
DN |
Summary of QP |
Status |
| Texas
v. Meyers |
R. Ted Cruz SG of Texas |
CA5 |
06-462 |
Whether a State still possesses
immunity from suit when it removes claims for which the State's
sovereign immunity has not been waived by the State or abrogated by
Congress. (Also available: Meyers
BIO, US
BIO, Reply) |
|
| Lopez-Cancinas
v. Gonzales |
Lynn Marcus Univ. of Ariz. |
CA9 |
06-740 |
Whether the REAL ID Act, which
restored jurisdiction over "questions of law" in immigration cases
notwithstanding specific jurisdictional bars, confers on the courts of
appeals jurisdiction to review the proper interpretation of regulations
and the application of law to undisputed facts where review of the
underlying issue or form of relief is otherwise barred. (Docs coming
soon) |
|
| Butler
v. Fletcher |
D. Bruce LaPierre Wash. U. St. Loius |
CA8 |
06-955 |
Whether deliberate indifference
is the degree of culpability that must be shown to establish that
pretrial detention conditions amount to punishment in violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
|
| Niagara
Mohawk Power v. FERC New York v. FERC |
Elias Farrah Jonathan Feinberg |
CADC |
06-1010 06-1011 |
Whether the Court of Appeals
erred in concluding that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has
jurisdiction to prescribe terms and conditions for retail sales and
local distribution service. (Docs coming soon) |
|
| Newland
v. Boyd |
Glenn Pruden CA AG's office |
CA9 |
06-1032 |
Whether a state court reasonably applies Batson v. Kentucky by declining to undertake comparative analysis of challenged and nonchallenged jurors for the first time on appeal. (Also available: BIO, Reply) | |
| Buffalo
Teachers Federation v. Tobe |
Andrew Roth Bredhoff & Kaiser |
CA2 |
06-1168 |
Whether the standard of judicial
review that applies in determining the reasonableness and necessity of
state legislative action impairing a state political subdivision's
contractual financial obligations is the "careful scrutiny" standard
"deference to [the] legislat[ure]" standard. (Also available: BIO,
Reply) |
|
| Hamdan
v. Gates/ Khadr v. Bush |
Neal Katyal Georgetown Law |
CADC |
06-1169 |
Even if the MCA validly
withdraws habeas jurisdiction over petitions filed by individuals
detained as alleged enemy combatants, are the petitioners in this case
who are facing criminal prosecution
before military tribunals - and sentences of life imprisonment and
death - nevertheless protected by fundamental rights secured by the
Constitution, including the right to challenge the jurisdiction of such
a tribunal via the writ of habeas corpus. (Also available: BIO,
Reply) |