The “Notable Petitions” feature lists petitions that likely will later appear on our “Petitions to Watch” list when they are ready for consideration by the Justices. “Notable Petitions” are those that Tom has identified as raising one or more questions that has a reasonable chance of being granted in an appropriate case. We generally do not attempt to evaluate whether the case presents an appropriate vehicle to decide the question, which is a critical consideration in determining whether certiorari will be granted.
The newest notable petitions, along with the opinions below and any other briefs filed at the Court so far, follow the jump.
Title: Harber Corporation v. United States
Issue: (1) Whether the government, when it is ordered to make restitution of illegally seized funds to an innocent owner, may also be ordered to disgorge interest earned or realized on the funds; and (2) whether a petition by property owners to challenge in personam forfeiture proceedings by the government under 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1) — which provides that the United States “shall be liable” for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by claimants who substantially prevail “in any civil proceeding to forfeit property under any provision of Federal law” — is part of “a proceeding to forfeit property” and whose petitioners, therefore, are entitled to fees and costs.
Title: Beer v. United States
Issue: Whether the Compensation Clause of Article III prevents Congress from withholding the future judicial salary adjustments established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
- Opinions below (Federal Circuit): Denial of rehearing en banc, summary affirmance
- Petition for certiorari
- Amicus brief of Bar Associations
- Amicus brief of the American Bar Association
- Amicus brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association
- Amicus brief of the Federal Judges Association
The following petition was filed by Akin Gump and is noted without regard to the likelihood of its being granted:
Title: National Football League v. Williams
Issue: Whether, when federal subject matter jurisdiction is not in question, and thus principles of ordinary, rather than complete, preemption are applicable, defenses that require analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement may substantively preempt state-law claims under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, or whether such defenses are categorically irrelevant to preemption analysis.