During the October 2009 Term, the Tarlton Law Library will monitor cases pending before the Supreme Court. Opinions will be posted here as they are issued, along with the certiorari petitions granted during this Term.
This archive does not include summary dispositions of certiorari petitions or orders issued on pending cases.
*Issue statements below courtesy of ScotusBlog.
Magwood v. Culliver, 555 F.3d 968 (11th Cir. 2009)
Issue: Limited by the Court to this first question only: When a person is resentenced after having obtained federal habeas relief from an earlier sentence, is a claim in a federal habeas petition challenging that new sentencing judgment a “second or successive” claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) if the petitioner could have challenged his previous sentence on the same constitutional grounds?
Full question presented
Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Lanning, 545 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2008)
Issue: The Court limited the question presented to the following: “Whether in calculating the debtor’s ‘projected disposal income’ during the plan period, the bankruptcy court may consider evidence suggesting that the debtor’s income or expenses during that period are likely to be different from her income or expenses during the pre-filing period.”
Full question presented
New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board, 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009)
Issue: Whether Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 153(b), authorizes the NLRB to act when only two of its five positions are filled, if the Board has previously delegated its full powers to a three-member group of the Board that includes the two remaining members; does the NLRB have authority to decide cases with only two sitting members, where 29 U.S.C. § 153(b) provides that “three members of the Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum of the Board”?
Full question presented
Levin, Tax Commissioner of Ohio v. Commerce Energy, 554 F.3d 1094 (6th Cir. 2009)
Issue: Does either the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, or comity principles bar federal court jurisdiction over a case alleging federal equal protection and dormant commerce clause claims when the plaintiffs do not challenge their own tax assessment and the relief sought is directed to specific tax exemptions or exclusions applicable to only four other taxpayers?
Full question presented
Kiyemba v. Obama, 555 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
Issue: Whether a federal court exercising its habeas jurisdiction, as confirmed by Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008), has no power to order the release of prisoners held by the Executive for seven years, when the Executive detention is indefinite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy.
Full question presented
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Regal-Beloit Corporation; Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Regal-Beloit Corporation, 557 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2009)
Issue: Whether the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which governs certain rail and motor transportation by common carriers within the United States, 49 U.S.C. §§ 11706 (rail carriers) & 14706 (motor carriers), applies to the inland rail leg of an intermodal shipment from overseas when the shipment was made under a “through” bill of lading issued by an ocean carrier that extended the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30701.
Full question presented
Full question presented
United States v. Marcus, 538 F.3d 97 (2d. Cir. 2008)
The issue involved in this case is the scope of federal appeals courts’ authority to overturn a conviction that may have been based in part on conduct that was not criminal when it occurred. Justice Sotomayor recused herself in this case.
Full question presented
Skilling v. United States, 554 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2009)
The Court will rule on claims that “searing media attacks” on longtime Enron executive Jeffrey K. Skilling tainted his criminal trial and conviction on various fraud charges. Other issues to be considered include the scope of the federal law punishing the failure to provide “honest services” as a corporate executive.
Full question presented
Health Care Service Corporation v. Pollitt, 558 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2009)
At issue in this case is whether federal law on federal employees’ health benefits preempts a state court lawsuit filed against a government contractor administering such benefits.
Full question presented
Holland v. Florida, 539 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2008)
At issue in this case is whether “gross negligence” by a state-appointed defense attorney in a death penalty case provides a basis for extending the time to file a federal habeas challenge, in a case where the habeas plea was filed late despite repeated instructions from the client.
Full question presented
Lewis v. City of Chicago, 528 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2008)
Issue: When an employer adopts an employment practice that discriminates against African Americans in violation of Title VII’s disparate impact provision, must a plaintiff file an EEOC charge within 300 days after the announcement of the practice, or may a plaintiff file a charge within 300 days after the employer’s use of the discriminatory practice?
Full question presented
Carr v. United States, 551 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2008)
Issue: Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failure to register when the defendant’s underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s enactment ; whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA’s enactment.
Full question presented
Astrue v. Ratliff, 540 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2008)
Issue: Whether an “award of fees and other expenses” under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), is payable to the “prevailing party” rather than to the prevailing party’s attorney, and therefore is subject to an offset for a pre-existing debt owed by the prevailing party to the United States.
Full question presented
Berghuis v. Smith, 543 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2008)
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when it rejected a state prisoner’s Sixth Amendment fair cross-section claim and whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the comparative-disparity test (for evaluating the difference between the numbers of African Americans in the community as compared to the venires).
Full question presented
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 547 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2008)
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit expanded the Miranda rule to prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them.
Full question presented
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project; Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder, 552 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2009)
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 2339B(a)(1), which prohibits the knowing provision of “any *** service, *** training, [or] expert advice or assistance,” to a designated foreign terrorist organization, is unconstitutionally vague; Whether the criminal prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) on the provision of “expert advice or assistance” “derived from scientific [or] technical … knowledge” and “personnel” are unconstitutional with respect to speech that furthers only lawful, nonviolent activities of proscribed organizations.
Full question presented
Full question presented
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2009)
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.
Full question presented
Migliaccio v. Castaneda; Henneford v. Castaneda, 546 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 2008)
Issue: Does 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) make the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for claims arising from medical care and related functions provided by Public Health Service personnel, thus barring Bivens actions?
Full question presented
Full question presented
Samantar v. Bashe Abdi Yousuf, 552 F.3d 371 (4th Cir. 2009)
Issue: Whether a foreign state’s immunity from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1604, extends to an individual acting in his official capacity on behalf of a foreign state and whether an individual who is no longer an official of a foreign state at the time suit is filed retains immunity for acts taken in the individual’s former capacity as an official acting on behalf of a foreign state.
Full question presented
United States v. O’Brien and Burgess, 542 F.3d 921 (1st Cir. 2008)
Issue: Whether the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) to a 30-year minimum when the firearm is a machinegun is an element of the offense that must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or instead a sentencing factor that may be found by a judge by the preponderance of the evidence.
Full question presented