Posted on February 22, 2010 at 10:07 am by Erin Miller
The Court has granted cert. in two cases,Â Los Angeles County v. Humphries (09-350) andÂ Harrington v. Richter (09-587).Â In the former case, the Court has limited the questions presented to the first one (see below).Â In the latter case, the Court has directed the parties to address a question in addition to those raised in the petition: Does AEDPA deference apply to a state court’s summary disposition of a claim including a claim under Strickland v. Washington?
[ADDITION, 8 p.m.: The original version of this post did not state that the questions presented in Los Angeles County v. Humphries were limited to the first question.]
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in two cases: CSX Transportation v. Alabama Department of Revenue (09-520) and Ortho Biotech Products v. United States ex rel. Duxbury (09-654).
There are two unanimous summary dispositions: In Wilkins v. Gaddy (08-10914) the judgment of the lower court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings; in Thaler v. Haynes (09-273), the lower court’s judgment is also reversed and remanded.Â Justice Thomas filed a concurrence, joined by Justice Scalia, in Wilkins.
The full order list is here.Â Briefs in cases acted on follow the jump.
Title: Los Angeles County v. Humphries
Issues: (1) For a claim for declaratory relief against a local public entity, must the plaintiff demonstrate that the constitutional violation was the result of a policy, custom or practice attributable to the local public entity; and (2) if the plaintiff has not made such a showing, may he or she be a â€œprevailing partyâ€ under 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1988 for purposes of a fee award?
Title: Harrington v. Richter
Issue: Does a defense lawyer violate the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when he does not investigate or present available forensic evidence supporting the theory of defense he uses during trial and instead relies on cross-examination and other methods designed to create reasonable doubt about the defendantâ€™s guilt?
Title: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue
Issue: Whether a stateâ€™s exemption of railroad competitors, but not railroads, from a generally applicable sales and use tax is subject to challenge as â€œanother tax that discriminates against a rail carrierâ€ under Section 306(1)(d) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, 49 U.S.C. Â§ 11501(b)(4).
Title: Ortho Biotech Products v. United States ex rel. Duxbury
Issues: (1) Whether a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act that repeats publicly disclosed allegations from prior litigation, when the FCA relator did not provide the government with information on the suitâ€™s allegations before the public disclosure; and (2) whether an FCA relator, alleging that the defendant induced a third party to submit false or fraudulent claims, can satisfy Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without identifying a single false or fraudulent claim, but merely by alleging facts sufficient â€œto strengthen the inference of fraud beyond possibility.â€
- Opinion below (1st Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitionerâ€™s reply
- Amicus brief of the American Hospital Association
- Amicus brief of the Washington Legal Foundation
Title: Thaler v. Haynes
Issues: (1) Whether a new trial is required solely because the trial judge observed the prosecutorâ€™s unrebutted explanation for a juror strike, but did not also observe voir dire firsthand? (2) Was this purported right to a new trial â€œclearly establishedâ€ at the time of trial in 1999, as required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act?; and does this right prevent federal courts from applying the presumption of correctness to the state court finding that the peremptory strike was not racially motivated, as required under the AEDPA?