During the October 2008 Term, the Tarlton Law Library monitored cases pending before the Supreme Court. Opinions were posted here as they were 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.
Ricci v. DeStefano
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the City of New Haven’s actions in discarding the firefighters’ tests violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer.Cuomo v. Clearing House Assn., L.L.C.
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court held that the Comptroller of the Currency’s regulation purporting to pre-empt state law enforcement is not a reasonable interpretation of the National Bank Act, 13 Stat. 99. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Alito.
Horne v. Flores
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court held in these consolidated cases that because the Court of Appeals and the District Court misunderstood the obligation imposed by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. §1703(f), and the breadth of the inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), this case is remanded for a proper examination of at least four factual and legal changes that may warrant relief. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court held that because punitive damages have long been an accepted remedy under general maritime law, and because neither Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, nor the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §30104, altered this understanding, punitive damages for the willful and wanton disregard of an employer’s maintenance and cure obligation remain available as a matter of general maritime law. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Kennedy.Safford United School District # 1 v. Redding
In an opinion written by Justice Souter, the Court held that the strip search of a middle school student violated the Fourth Amendment, but that the official who ordered the search is entitled to qualified immunity from liability. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg joined the opinion as to Parts I-III. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court held that a lab chemist must be called to testify in order to admit the lab analysis as evidence in a trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Alito.Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that (1) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (as opposed to the Environmental Protection Agency) has the authority under the Clean Water Act to issue a permit for the discharge of mining waste, and (2) the permit is lawful. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Breyer, and Alito, and Justice Scalia, in part. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens and Souter.Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A.
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq., authorizes reimbursement for private special-education services when a public school fails to provide a “free appropriate public education” and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special-education services through the public school. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas.Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder
In an 8-1 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the utility district was eligible to seek bailout from the preclearance obligations at issue and did not address the constitutionality of §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §1973. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court held that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg.Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey
In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Souter, the Court held that the terms of the injunction against insurers of Johns-Manville Corporation (including Travelers Indemnity Co.) bars state-law actions against Travelers based on allegations either of its own wrongdoing while acting as Manville's insurer or of its misuse of information obtained from Manville as its insurer. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg.Yeager v. United States
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that an apparent inconsistency between a jury's verdict of acquittal on some counts and its failure to return a verdict on other counts does not affect the acquittals' preclusive force under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, and Justice Kennedy, as to Parts I-III. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas.District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne
In a 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that an individual whose criminal conviction has become final does not have a constitutional right to gain access to evidence so that it can be subjected to DNA testing to try to prove innocence. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas, as to Part II. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, and Justice Souter, as to Part I. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion.Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, Alaska
In an opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Court held that the tax imposed by the City of Valdez on cargo ships which used its port violates the Tonnage Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, §10, cl. 3. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Alito joined the opinion with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-B-1. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg joined the opinion with respect to Part II-B-2. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Souter.Nijhawan v. Holder
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Court held that petitioner’s conviction for mail, bank and wire fraud qualified as an aggravated felony under the immigration laws, the penalty for which is lifetime banishment from the country.
Boyle v. United States
In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court held that an association-in-fact enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq., must have a “structure” but the pertinent jury instruction framed in the precise language in this case (“an ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages” ) is unnecessary. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Breyer.United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the 30-day time limit to file a notice of appeal in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) applies when the United States declines to formally intervene in a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729.United States v. Denedo
In an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that Article I military appellate courts have jurisdiction to entertain petitions to consider allegations that an earlier judgment of conviction was flawed in a fundamental respect. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that it was unconstitutional pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a state Supreme Court justice to sit on a case involving the financial interests of a major donor to the judge’s election campaign. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Scalia also filed a dissenting opinion.Republic of Iraq v. Beaty
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held that the Republic of Iraq is immune from suit in American courts pursuant to the terrorism exception to foreign sovereign immunity, now repealed, that had been codified at 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(7).
Bobby v. Bies
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar post-conviction hearings about an inmate’s mental capacity.Abuelhawa v. United States
In a unanimous decision by Justice Souter, the Court reversed and remanded the decision below, holding that using a telephone to make a misdemeanor drug purchase for personal use does not facilitate felony drug distribution in violation of 21 U.S.C. §843(b).Montejo v. Louisiana
In a 5-4 opinion by Justice Scalia, the court affirmed the decision below, which held for the State. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Kennedy joined. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, and by Justice Breyer except for footnote 5. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion. The Court overruled its 23-year old ruling in Michigan v. Jackson, which had forbidden police to initiate interrogation of a criminal defendant once he had invoked his right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding. The Court held that the Jackson rule has proven “unworkable” and that the protections of Miranda and Edwards v. Arizona are sufficient.Haywood v. Drown
The decision below, which held for the State, is reversed and remanded in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Stevens. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined as to Part III by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Alito. The Court held that New York State Correction Law §24, which barred New York state courts from hearing civil actions seeking money damages against corrections officers, including causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, violates the Supremacy Clause.AT &T Corp v. Hulteen
In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Souter, the Court held that an employer does not necessarily violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k), when it pays pension benefits calculated in part under an accrual rule, applied only-pre PDA, that gave less retirement credit for pregnancy leave than for medical leave generally. AT&T’s pension payments accord with a bona fide seniority system’s terms and are therefore insulated from challenge under Title VII §703(h). The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Stevens filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Breyer.Ashcroft v. Iqbal
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that there were insufficient factual allegations to support a claim of intentional bias by former Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.Flores-Figueroa v. United States
In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Court interpreted 18 U.S.C. §1028(a)(1) as requiring the Government to show that the defendant knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc.
In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court held that a district court’s order remanding a case to state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims is not a remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for which appellate review is barred by 28 U.S.C. §§1447(c) and (d). Justices Stevens and Scalia filed concurring opinions. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Souter.Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court held that (1) the Sixth Circuit had jurisdiction to review the denial of petitioners’ requests for a stay pursuant to §3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §3); and (2) a litigant who was not a party to the arbitration agreement may invoke §3 if the relevant state contract law allows him to enforce the agreement. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Stevens.Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States
In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court held in this consolidated case that (1) Shell Oil is not liable under 42 U.S.C. §9607(a)(3)as an arranger for the contamination at the Arvin facility; and (2) the District Court reasonably apportioned the Railroads’ share of the site remediation costs at 9%. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion.
Kansas v. Ventris
In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court held that a confession which was inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief (elicited in violation of the Sixth Amendment) was admissible to impeach inconsistent testimony at trial. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg.Dean v. United States
In a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(1)(A)(iii) requires no separate proof of intent. The 10-year mandatory minimum applies if a gun is discharged in the course of a violent or drug trafficking crime, whether on purpose or by accident. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Alito. Justices Stevens and Breyer filed dissenting opinions.FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
In an opinion primarily written by Justice Scalia, the Court upheld the government’s power under existing law to ban the use on radio and TV of even a single four-letter word that is considered indecent. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III–A through III–D, and IV, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Scalia also delivered an opinion with respect to Part III–E, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito joined.
Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg filed dissenting opinions. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.Cone v. Bell
In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that (1) the Sixth Circuit’s rejection of the claim as procedurally defaulted because it had been twice presented to the Tennessee courts was erroneous; and (2) the lower federal courts failed to adequately consider whether the withheld documents were material to Cone’s sentence. The case was remanded to the District Court to determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the withheld evidence would have altered at least one juror’s assessment of the appropriate penalty for Cone’s crimes. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Scalia.
Nken v. Holder
In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that traditional criteria governing stays, as opposed to the more demanding criteria set forth in 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(2), govern a court of appeals’ authority to stay an alien’s removal pending judicial review. Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Scalia. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Thomas.Shinseki v. Sanders
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Court held in this case involving a denial of claims for veterans’ disability benefits that the Federal Circuit’s harmless-error framework conflicts with 38 U.S.C. §7261(b)(2)’s requirement that the Veterans Court take “due account of the rule of prejudicial error.” The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg.Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi
In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held that (1) the asset in question was not a “blocked asset” pursuant to the terms of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, and (2) Elahi cannot attach the asset for he has waived his right to do so. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined the opinion of the Court in full. Justices Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg joined as to Parts I and II of the opinion. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg.Arizona v. Gant
In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy; Justice Breyer joined except as to Part II-E.Corley v. United States
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Souter, the Court determined that Congress intended 18 U.S.C. §3501 to limit and not eliminate the rule in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957), under which an arrested person’s confession is inadmissible if given after an unreasonable delay in bringing him before a judge. The decision below, which held for the United States, was vacated and remanded. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas.United States v. Navajo Nation
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court held that the damage claim asserted by the Navajo Nation against the Federal Government in connection with amendments to a coal lease failed; hence, the Tribe is not entitled to compensation. Justice Souter filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Stevens.
14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court held a provision in a collective bargaining agreement that requires union members to arbitrate claims under the Age Discrimination Act of 1967 is enforceable as a matter of federal law. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Souter also filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer.Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency may rely on cost-benefit analyses to determine what technology to require for structures that affect river and stream flows. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg.Harbison v. Bell
In an opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that (1) a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(1)(A) is not required to appeal an order denying a request for federally appointed counsel under 18 U.S.C. §3599, and (2) a 2005 federal law providing free defense lawyers for individuals facing a possible death sentence allows such a lawyer to seek clemency for the client from state officials. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Alito.
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court held that the Apology Resolution did not strip Hawaii of its sovereign authority to alienate the lands the United States held in absolute fee and granted to the State upon its admission to the Union.Rivera v. Illinois
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that provided all seated jurors in a criminal case are qualified and unbiased, the Due Process Clause does not require automatic reversal of a conviction because of the trial court’s good-faith error in denying the defendant’s peremptory challenge to a juror.
Puckett v. United States
In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court found that if federal prosecutors violated a plea bargain with an accused who pleads guilty, that must be brought out at the trial and cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal, in accordance with the plain-error standard set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Stevens.
Knowles v. Mirzayance
In an opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court held that whether the state-court decision was reviewed under the standard of review set forth in 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) or de novo, Mirzayance failed to establish that his counsel’s performance was ineffective. The decision below was reversed and remanded. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer and Alito. Justices Scalia, Souter, and Ginsburg joined as to all but Part II of the Court’s opinion.Kansas v. Colorado
In a 9-0 decision written by Justice Alito, the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1821(b), which limits expert witness fees to $40 per day, applies to cases arising under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Souter.Vermont v. Brillon
In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the Vermont Supreme Court erred in ranking assigned counsel essentially as state actors in the criminal justice system. Thus, delays caused by a public defender cannot deprive a criminal defendant of his right to a speedy trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Stevens.Vaden v. Discover Bank
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that a federal court may “look through” a petition filed under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §4, to determine whether it is predicated on a controversy that “arises under” federal law. However, a federal court may not entertain a §4 petition based on the contents of a counterclaim when the whole controversy between the parties does not qualify for federal-court adjudication. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas joined the opinion of Justice Ginsburg. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Alito.Bartlett v. Strickland
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §1973, does not require state officials to draw election district lines to allow a racial minority that would make up less than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the redrawn district to join with crossover voters to elect the minority’s candidate of choice. The opinion of Justice Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Scalia. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer also filed dissenting opinions.Wyeth v. Levine
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that federal approval of labels giving warnings about effects of drugs does not bar lawsuits under state law claiming inadequate warnings of a health risk. The opinion of the Court was joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.Negusie v. Holder
In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals and Fifth Circuit misapplied Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981), as mandating that whether an alien is compelled to assist in persecution is immaterial for prosecutor-bar purposes (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Alito. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Alito. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Breyer. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.Summers v. Earth Island Institute
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court held that the environmental organizations lacked standing to challenge a series of U.S. Forest Service regulations absent a live dispute over concrete application of those regulations. The opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court held that governments may accept permanent religious monuments in public parks without violating the rights of others who are denied a chance to have a different religious icons sharing park space. Concurring opinions were written by Justices Stevens, Scalia, Breyer, and Souter.Pacific Bell Telephone Company v. linkLine Communications, Inc.
In a 9-0 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that a company not obligated under antitrust law to sell to others at wholesale prices cannot be held liable for variations in its wholesale and retail price levels. Justice Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.United States v. Hayes
In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that a domestic relationship, although it must be established beyond a reasonable doubt in a firearms possession prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9), need not be a defining element of the predicate offense. Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer and Alito joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Thomas joined as to all but Part III of the opinion. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Scalia.Carcieri v. Salazar
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court ruled on whether the Narrangansett Tribe may receive benefits under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The Court concluded that the power only applied to tribes that were officially recognized by the government in 1934, thus vetoing action by the Department of the Interior to provide a 31-parcel acre of land in Rhode Island to the Narrangansett Indians. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Souter filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion.Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association
In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that Idaho’s ban on political payroll deductions, as applied to local governmental units, does not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of public employee unions. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justices Stevens and Souter filed dissenting opinions.Van de Kamp v. Goldstein
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Court held that a prosecutor’s absolute immunity from claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. §1983 extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material due to failures in supervision, training, and information-system management.Arizona v. Johnson
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that in the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and dangerous, but had no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense.United States v. Eurodif S.A.
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Souter, the Court held that the Commerce Department’s take on the transactions at issue as sales of goods rather than services reflects a permissible interpretation and application of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. §1673.Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Sav. and Investment Plan
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Souter, the Court held that ERISA’s Qualified Domestic Relations Order provision is not the only valid way a divorcing spouse can waive her right to receive her ex-husband’s pension benefits under ERISA. Nonetheless, in this case the plan administrator properly disregarded the waiver for other reasons.Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Cty.
In an opinion written by Justice Souter, the Court held that the protection of the antiretaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an employer’s internal investigation. Justice Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Thomas.Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Comm.
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court held that Title IX does not preclude a §1983 action alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools.Pearson v. Callahan
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court held that the formula decided in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), “should no longer be regarded as mandatory in all cases.” Under the two-step formula, judges must first decide whether a government official’s action violated the Constitution. If so, the question becomes whether the constitutional protection was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.Locke v. Karass
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Court held that the Constitution allows a local unit of a labor union to charge workers who are not members fees to help cover lawsuit expenses of the union at the national level, as long as those lawsuits (1) involve issues that could have been pursued if they had involved only local conditions, such as litigation over collective bargaining questions, and (2) the charge is reciprocal in nature. Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.Waddington v. Sarausad
In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Thomas involving an accomplice to a driveby shooting and potentially ambiguous jury instructions, the Court held that because the state-court decision did not result in an “unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), the Ninth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief to Sarausad. Justice Souter wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg.Oregon v. Ice
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that it does not violate the Constitution for a judge to impose consecutive sentences based on facts that were found not by the jury, but by the judge. Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Souter and Thomas.Herring v. United States
In this 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that evidence of a crime does not have to be excluded from a case if police obtained it while relying on erroneous information supplied by another police officer. Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer. Justice Breyer also wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Souter.Jimenez v. Quarterman
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Court held that when a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal during state collateral review, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas relief, his judgment is not “final” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(A) until the conclusion of the out-of-time direct appeal, or the expiration of the time for seeking certiorari review of that appeal.Chambers v. United States
In an opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Court held that Illinois’ crime of failure to report for penal confinement falls outside the scope of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s “violent felony” definition, 18 U.S.C. §924(e). Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas.Altria Group v. Good
In a 5-4 decision, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which found that the state law claim at issue was not pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, as amended. The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, et al.
The Court upheld the Navy's power to use sonar in military training exercises despite claims by environmentalists that the technology threatens marine life in the training zone. The opinion of the Court was written by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part, joined in the concurrence by Justice Stevens. Justices Ginsburg and Souter dissented.
Briscoe v. Virginia, 657 S.E.2d 113 (Va. 2008)
This case involves the constitutionality of a procedure used in Virginia that requires an accused to assert a demand to question the technician who prepared the lab report. The ruling by the State Supreme Court was that if an accused does not follow the demand procedure, he surrenders his right to confront and cross-examine the report’s author.
Full question presented
Abbott v. Abbott, 542 F.3d 1081 (5th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether a ne exeat clause confers a “right of custody” within the meaning of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 49.
Full question presented
American Needle v. National Football League, 538 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether NFL Properties, the NFL, and the teams functioned as a “single entity” when granting the company an exclusive headwear license and therefore could not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 1, which requires proof of collective action involving “separate entities.”
Full question presented
Weyhrauch v. United States, 548 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether, to convict a state official for depriving the public of its right to the defendant’s honest services through the non-disclosure of material information, in violation of the mail fraud statute (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346), the government must prove that the defendant violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law.
Full question presented
Conkright v. Frommert, 535 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether the statutory requirements for releases of claims under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act are applicable to ERISA claims; whether Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989), deference applies to a plan administrator’s interpretation of benefits when issued outside of the administrative claims process; and whether a totality-of-the-circumstances test should be used to determine if an employee has “knowingly and voluntarily” waived pension benefits by signing a boilerplate release.
Full question presented
Jerman v. Carlisle, 538 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether a debt collector’s legal error qualifies for the bona fide error defense under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692.
Full question presented
Granite Rock Company v. Int’l Brotherhood Of Teamsters, 546 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008)
This consolidated case involves a collective bargaining agreement and claims of tortious interference with that agreement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case against the IBT for failure to state a claim, and reversed and remanded the lower court’s denial to compel arbitration on the question of contract formation between Granite Rock and Local 287.
Full question presented
Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S. ex rel. Wilson, 528 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether lawsuits seeking to recover misspent federal funds are barred if the information behind the lawsuits came out in state or local agency reports or audits, rather than in a federal proceeding.
Full question presented
United States v. Comstock, 551 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2009)
The Court will determine the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §4248, part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, giving federal officials authority to order the long-term confinement of individuals considered to be sexually dangerous.
Full question presented
Florida v. Powell, 998 So. 2d 531 (Fl. 2008)
The Court will decide whether Miranda warnings to a suspect in police custody must exclude an explicit assurance that the individual may have a lawyer in the room while questioning takes place.
Full question presented
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 553 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2008)
The Court will decide whether an individual who owes on a student loan may wipe out the debt, at least partly, in a bankruptcy without showing that the debt posed an “undue hardship” pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(8).
Full question presented
Stolt-Nielsen S.A., et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008)
The issue before the Court is as follows: when two companies agree to send their disputes to arbitration, may a court order that process to go forward as a class action, if the contract says nothing on that issue.
Full question presented
Mac’s Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co.; Shell Oil Prods. Co. v. Mac’s Shell Service, 524 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2008)
In this consolidated case, the Court will spell out the rights of service station operators to sue to challenge the loss, or non-renewal, of their franchises from oil companies.
Full question presented
Full question presented
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 998 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 2008)
The Court will consider putting constitutional limits on states’ authority to restore storm-eroded beaches along the ocean or lakeshores, when such action modifies private property boundary lines.
Full question presented
Hertz Corporation v. Friend, 297 Fed.Appx. 690 (9th Cir. 2008)
At issue in this case is whether the location of a nationwide corporation’s headquarters can be considered for purposes of determining principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §1332.
Full question presented
Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States; United States v. Milavetz, 541 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2008)
At issue in this consolidated case is whether an attorney who provides bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person in return for valuable consideration, and who does not fall within one of the five exceptions, is a “debt relief agency” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. §526 and whether 11 U.S.C. §528 violates the First Amendment.
Full question presented
Full question presented
Bilski v. Doll, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (”machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether the “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility contradicts Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing business” in 35 U.S.C. § 273.
Full question presented
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 543 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider when, under the “inquiry notice” standard applicable to federal securities fraud claims, the statute of limitations begins to run.
Full question presented
Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 537 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
The Court will decide whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is consistent with separation-of-powers principles (since the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is in turn overseen by the President ) or contrary to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (since the PCAOB members are appointed by the SEC).
Full question presented
Black v. United States, 530 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2008)
The Court will decide whether the “honest services” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants “reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm,” and if the defendants’ reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government’s request for a special verdict.
Full question presented
Wood v. Allen, 542 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2008)
This death penalty case tests the failure of an inexperienced defense lawyer to present in a capital sentencing proceeding evidence of the defendant’s severe mental impairment.
Full question presented
Beard v. Kindler, 542 F.3d 70 (3d Cir. 2008)
The Court will determine whether a state procedural rule is automatically “inadequate” under the adequate-state-grounds doctrine, and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas corpus review, because the state rule is discretionary rather than mandatory.
Full question presented
Hemi Group, LLC, et al. v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
The Court will consider whether city government meets the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §1961 et. seq, standing requirement that a plaintiff be directly injured in its “business or property” by alleging non commercial injury resulting from non-payment of taxes by non-litigant third parties.
Full question presented
Shady Grove Orthopedic Association v. Allstate Insurance Co., 549 F.3d 137 (2d. Cir. 2008)
At issue is whether a state legislature can properly prohibit the federal courts from using the class action mechanism for state law claims.
Full question presented
Graham v. Florida, 982 So. 2d. 43 (Fl. App. 1 Dist. 2008)
The Court will consider whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as punishment for the juvenile’s commission of non-homicide.
Full question presented
Sullivan v. Florida, 987 So. 2d 83 (Fl. App. 1 Dist. 2008)
The Court will consider whether the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a thirteen-year-old for a non-homicide violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the freakishly rare imposition of such a sentence reflects a national consensus on the reduced criminal culpability of children.
Full question presented
Schwab v. Reilly, 534 F.3d 173 (3d Cir., 2008)
In this Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the Court will clarify the value of certain assets in bankruptcy.
Full question presentedNRG Power Marketing, LLC, et al. v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, et al., 520 F.3d 464 (D.C. Cir., 2008)
The Court will consider the standard federal courts are to use in judging the legality of rates for wholesale purchase of electric power for re-sale to using customers.
Full question presented
Kucana v. Holder, 533 F.3d 534 (7th Cir., 2008)
The Court will consider the scope of Congress’ withdrawal of court review of deportation decisions.
Full question presentedBloate v. U.S., 534 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether time granted at the request of a defendant to prepare pretrial motions qualifies as “delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant” and is thus excludable from the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. §3161 et seq.
Full question presentedUnited States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008)
The Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. §48, on depictions of animal cruelty, is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Full question presentedPottawattamie County et al. v. McGhee et al., 547 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether a prosecutor may be subjected to a civil trial and potential damages for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly violated a criminal defendant’s “substantive due process” rights by procuring false testimony during the criminal investigation, and then introduced that same testimony against the criminal defendant at trial.
Full question presented
Perdue v. Kenny, 532 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2008)
The grant is limited to the following question: Can a reasonable attorney’s fee award under a federal fee-shifting statute ever be enhanced based solely on quality of performance and results obtained when these factors already are included in the lodestar calculation?
Full question presented
Jones v. Harris Associates, 527 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider Whether the Seventh Circuit contravened the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-35(b), in holding that a shareholder’s claim that the fund’s investment adviser charged an excessive fee is not cognizable under Section 36(b), unless the shareholder can show that the adviser misled the fund’s directors who approved the fee.
Full question presented
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 509 F.3d 136 (2nd Cir. 2007)
The Court will consider the issue of whether 17 U.S.C. §411(a) restricts the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts over copyright infringement actions.
Full question presentedAlvarez v. Smith, 524 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether local law enforcement agencies may seize and retain custody indefinitely of personal property without judicial or administrative review of the lawfulness of the continued detention of the property.
Full question presentedSalazar, Secretary of the Interior v. Buono, 527 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether an individual has standing under Article III of the Constitution to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land if an Act of Congress directing the land be transferred to a private entity is a permissible accommodation.
Full question presentedUnion Pacific Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen General Committee of Adjustment, Central Region, 537 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§151 et seq., authorizes courts to set aside final arbitration awards for alleged violations of due process by the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and if the Board can adopt a new, retroactive interpretation of the standards governing its arbitration proceedings.
Full question presented
Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 253 S.W.3d 482 (Ky. 2008)
The Court will address the question of whether the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel requires a criminal defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client that pleading guilty to an aggravated felony will trigger mandatory, automatic deportation, and if that misadvice about deportation induces a guilty plea, can that misadvice amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and warrant setting aside the guilty plea.
Full question presentedSmith v. Spisak, 512 F.3d 852 (6th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider the question of whether the Sixth Circuit contravened the directives of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 by improperly extending Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988).
Full question presentedJohnson v. U.S., 528 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2008)
The Court will examine whether under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a “violent felony,” even when the state held that offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.
Full question presented
McDaniel v. Brown, 2008 WL 2789254 (9th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether, on federal habeas review, the evidence underlying the defendant’s conviction for sexual assault was clearly insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
Full question presentedMohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 541 F.3d 1048 (11th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether a party may immediately appeal a discovery order to disclose materials said to be covered by the attorney-client privilege.
Full question presentedMaryland v. Shatzer, 954 A.2d 1118 (Md. 2008)
The Court will consider whether Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place nearly three years later.
Full question presented
Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 523 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether parents of a student who has never previously received special education services from a school district may be eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., for reimbursement of private school tuition.
Full question presentedCuomo v. The Clearing House Association, L.L.C., 510 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2007)
The question at issue is whether 12 U.S.C. § 484, a provision of the National Bank Act, and 12 C.F.R. § 7.4000 prohibit measures taken by the New York State Attorney General to enforce state fair lending law against national banks by subjecting those entities to “visitorial powers.”
Full question presentedSafford United School District # 1 v. Redding, 510 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting a search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus in violation of school policy.
Full question presentedNijhawan v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2008)
The Court will decide whether the petitioner’s conviction for mail, bank and wire fraud qualified as an aggravated felony under the immigration laws, the penalty for which is lifetime banishment from the country.
Full question presentedBobby v. Bies, 535 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2008)
At issue is whether the holding of a state post-conviction hearing to determine the mental capacity of a capital defendant whose death sentence was affirmed before Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), which barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants, violates the Double Jeopardy clause.
Full question presentedU.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 540 F.3d 94 (2nd Cir. 2008)
The Court must decide whether the 30-day time limit in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) for filing a notice of appeal, or the 60-day time limit in Rule 4(a)(1)(B), applies to a qui tam action under the False Claims Act.
Full question presentedIraq v. Beaty, Iraq v. Simon, 2007 WL 1169333 (D.C. 2007), 529 F. 3d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
In these consolidated cases, the Court will consider the Iraqi government’s claim of immunity to liability in U.S. courts for past torture and abuse of Americans.
Full question presented
Full question presented
Ricci v. DeStefano, 264 Fed. Appx. 106 (2nd Cir. 2008)
These consolidated employment cases involve recurring issues regarding proper application of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause to the civil service. In particular, the Court will consider whether municipalities may decline to certify results of an exam that would make disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion than minority applicants, due to fears that certifying the results would lead to charges of racial discrimination.
Full question presented
Full question presented
Horne v. Flores, Speaker of the AZ House v. Flores, 516 F. 3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2008)
In these consolidated cases, the Court will consider whether the courts below improperly declined to modify an injunction against Arizona for failing to provide sufficient funding for non-English speaking school children.
Full question presented
Full question presented
Northwest Austin Mun. Util. v. Mukasey, Atty'Gen, 557 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.C. 2008)
In this case involving the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Court will examine Congress’ authority to require continuing close federal oversight of state and local election procedures. Specifically, the Court will consider whether the appellant is eligible to “bail out” from the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and whether Congress provided sufficient justification of current voting discrimination when extended the requirement in 2006 for another twenty-five years.
Full question presented
Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, Alaska, 182 P.3d 614 (2008)
The Court will consider whether a municipal tax that falls exclusively on large vessels in the City of Valdez’s harbor violates the Tonnage Clause, Commerce Clause, or Due Process Clause.
Full question presentedTravelers Indemnity v. Bailey et al., Common Law Settlement Counsel v. Bailey et al., 517 F.3d 52 (2nd Cir. 2008)
In this consolidated case arising out of the Johns-Manville Corp. bankruptcy case, the Court will consider whether a federal bankruptcy court can block private lawsuits that seek damages for injury and death due to exposure to asbestos.
Full question presented
Full question presentedGross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 526 F.3d 356 (8th Cir. 2008)
The Court will consider whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case.
Full question presentedal-Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2008)
The Court will decide whether Congress, in passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) 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.
Full question presentedNken v. Mukasey, 273 Fed.Appx. 219 (4th Cir. 2008)
The Court will determine whether the decision of a court of appeals to stay an alien’s removal pending consideration of the alien’s petition for review is governed by the standard set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2) or instead by the traditional test for stays and preliminary injunctive relief.
Full question presentedU.S. v. Denedo, 66 M.J. 114 (2008))
In this case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Court will decide 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.
Full question presentedArthur Andersen, LLP v. Carlisle, 521 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2008)
The Court will decide whether a litigant not a party to an arbitration agreement may file a pre-trial appeal after a judge refuses to stay a court case pending arbitration.
Full question presentedDean v. U.S., 517 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2008)
In this robbery case, the Court will determine whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), the mere discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking, even if accidental, is subject to a ten-year sentencing enhancement.
Full question presentedCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 530 F.Supp.2d 274 (D.C. 2008)
This case involves the question of whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Senator Hillary Clinton, Hillary: The Movie, intended to be shown in theaters and on-demand to cable subscribers.
NOTE: In this case, probable jurisdiction was noted in today's orders.
Full question presentedAbuelhawa v. U.S., 523 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2008)
The Court will decide whether the use of a cell phone to buy drugs for personal use (a misdemeanor) “facilitates” the commission of a drug “felony,” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).
Full question presentedYeager v. U.S., 521 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2008)
In this case arising from the collapse of Enron Corporation, the Court will determine whether, under the Double Jeopardy Clause, the government may retry defendants acquitted of some charges on factually related counts on which the jury failed to reach a verdict.
Full question presentedCaperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., et al., 2008 WL 918444 (W.Va. 2008)
The Court will decide whether a judge’s failure to recuse himself from participation in his principal financial supporter’s case violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Full question presentedAtlantic Sounding Co., Inc., et al. v Townsend, F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007)
In this maritime law case, the Court will determine whether a seaman may recover punitive damages for the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.
Full question presentedDistrict Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. Osborne, 521 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2008)
This case involves the issue of post-conviction DNA testing. The Court must determine whether a defendant may access a state's biological evidence following a conviction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Full question presentedFlores-Figueroa, Ignacio C. v. United States, 274 Fed. Appx. 501 (8th Cir. 2008)
In this case involving the misuse of immigration documents, the Court must decide whether an individual who used a false means of identification but did not know it belonged to another person can be convicted of “aggravated identity theft” under 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1).
Full question presentedCarlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 508 F.3d 659 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
In this case arising out of a dispute over ownership of a potential cancer drug, the Court will decide whether a federal court order remanding a case to state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is subject to appellate review.
Full question presentedVermont v. Brillon, 2008 WL 681425 (Vt. 2008)
The issue in this case is whether delays caused by a public defender can deprive a criminal defendant of his right to a speedy trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment.
Full question presentedCorley v. U.S., 500 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2007)
The Court will decide whether federal law permits the suppression of a voluntary confession made more than six hours after arrest but before presentment to a magistrate, as a consequence of unreasonable delay in presentment.
Full question presented
Rivera v. Illinois, 879 N.E.2d 876 (Ill. 2007)
The Court will address whether the erroneous denial of a criminal defendant's preemptory challenge that resulted in the challenged juror being seated requires automatic reversal of a conviction.
Full question presented
Puckett v. U.S., 505 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2007)
In this felony case, the Court will determine whether forfeited claims that the Government breached a plea agreement are subject to a "plain error" standard of review.
Full question presented
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al. v. U.S.
Shell Oil Company v. U.S., 520 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2008)
In this consolidated case, the Court will decide whether the petitioners were incorrectly held jointly and severally liable for environmental cleanup costs under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§9601 et seq.
Full question presented
Full question presented
Montejo v. Louisiana, 974 So.2d 1238 (La. 2008)
The Court will address the question of whether an indigent defendant must affirmatively accept the appointment of counsel to preclude future police interrogation in the absence of an attorney.
Full question presented
United States v. Navajo Nation, 501 F.3d 1327 (Fed Cir., 2007)
The Court will determine whether its prior decision in United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003), foreclosed a finding that the government breached fiduciary duties in connection with Indian coal lease amendments.
Full question presented
Hawaii, et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et al., (177 P.3d 884, Hawaii 2008)
This case questions whether the Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii (Pub. L. No. 103-150, 107 Stat. 1510), requires the State of Hawaii to reach a political settlement with native Hawaiians before transferring some 1.2 million acres of State land.
Full question presented
Kansas v. Ventris, 176 P.3d 920 (Kan. 2008)
At issue in this case is whether prosecutors may use a defendant's statement - made in the absence of a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel - to impeach a witness, as opposed to during its case-in-chief.
Full question presented
Boyle v. U.S., 2007 WL 4102738 (2nd Cir. 2007)
In this RICO case (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68), the Court will decide whether, to establish the existence of an "enterprise" under RICO, the government must prove the existence of an entity with an ascertainable structure apart from the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages.
Full question presented