The Court is currently in its summer recess.  No oral arguments are scheduled until October, and no Conferences are scheduled until Monday, September 26, when the Justices will be formally back at work.  At that Conference, they will select cases for review from the summer lists.  Because our list of "Petitions to watch" for that Conference will be quite large, we will feature the petitions in installments, as they are distributed for the Court's review.  This set of petitions covers issues that include whether restitution is part of a criminal sentence, the exclusionary rule, and the Immigration and Nationality Act.  These are petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peabody Western Coal Company

Docket: 10-1080
Issue(s): Whether the Secretary of the Interior is a “required party,” within the meaning of Rule 19(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to an action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a private employer, where the challenged conduct was undertaken pursuant to a federally approved mining lease between the employer and an Indian Tribe, but no federal agency is a party to the lease.

Certiorari stage documents:

Staples v. United States

Docket: 10-1132
Issue(s): (1) Whether restitution is part of a criminal sentence, such that waiver of the right to appeal “any sentence” bars a defendant from appealing the amount of restitution imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2559; and, if so, (2) under what circumstances does the waiver of the right to appeal one's sentence preclude a court of appeals from reviewing the legality of an award.

Certiorari stage documents:

Opp v. Office of the State’s Attorney of Cook County

Docket: 10-1163
Issue(s): For purposes of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, who is a worker “at the policymaking level”?

Certiorari stage documents:

DirecTV, Inc. v. Levin

Docket: 10-1322
Issue(s): (1) Whether, in a Commerce Clause challenge to a state statute, courts need not examine the effects of the statute if it can be characterized as distinguishing between two competitors based upon their different methods of operation; and (2) whether courts need not examine the statute's effects because some of the beneficiaries of the discriminatory scheme are major interstate companies.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Szajer v. City of Los Angeles

Docket: 10-1343
Issue(s): Whether a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action based on a Fourth Amendment illegal search or seizure claim can proceed when the claimant has not been relieved of the conviction, but when neither the § 1983 claim nor the damages sought necessarily implies the invalidity of, nor arises out of, the conviction.

Certiorari stage documents:

Guerrero v. Holder

Docket: 10-1366
Issue(s): (1) Whether and to what extent the repeal of Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which made discretionary relief available to certain permanent residents convicted of deportable crimes, is impermissibly retroactive; and (2) what role reliance should play in a retroactivity analysis.

Certiorari stage documents:

Cook v. Rockwell International Corp.

Docket: 10-1377
Issue(s): (1) Whether state substantive law controls the standard of compensable harm in suits under the Price-Anderson Act, or whether the Act instead imposes a federal standard; and (2) whether, if a federal standard applies, a property owner whose land has been contaminated by radioactive plutonium, resulting in lost property value, must show some physical injury to the property beyond the contamination itself in order to recover for damage to property.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Srivastava v. United States

Docket: 10-1413
Issue(s): Whether all of the evidence seized pursuant to search warrants should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule, where the executing officers believed that the warrants imposed no meaningful limits on the items that could be seized and, consistent with that belief, seized a substantial volume of items not covered by the warrants.

Certiorari stage documents:

United States Steel Corp. v. United States

Docket: 10-1433
Issue(s): Whether the Department of Commerce is statutorily required to use zeroing to calculate dumping margins or may instead employ a methodology that negates Congress's expressly enacted remedy for U.S. industries and workers that have been injured by unfairly traded imports.

Certiorari stage documents:

Nucor Corp. v. United States

Docket: 10-1439
Issue(s): Whether the Tariff Act of 1930 – which defines “dumping” as “the sale or likely sale of goods at less than fair value” and “dumping margin” as “the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price of the subject merchandise” – unambiguously excludes above-fair-value sales ( i.e., those sales that do not constitute “dumping”) from the statutory formula for “weighted average dumping margin.”

Certiorari stage documents:

Dallas County v. Duvall

Docket: 10-1468
Issue(s): (1) Whether a claim by a pretrial detainee is established under the Due Process Clause as a matter of law by the presence of staph-infection-causing bacteria in a county jail and the fact that no legitimate, governmental purpose is served by the presence of such bacteria; (2) whether the lower court's application of Bell v. Wolfish (1979), which focuses on whether a “condition of confinement” constitutes punishment, can be reconciled with Daniels v. Williams (1986) and Davidson v. Cannon (1986), which rejected negligence as actionable under the Due Process Clause; and (3) whether the “deliberate indifference” standard for claims brought by convicted inmates should also be the applicable standard when a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of confinement that may put the health of both categories of inmates at risk.

Certiorari stage documents:

Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. (Granted )

Docket: 10-1472
Issue(s): Whether costs incurred in translating written documents are compensation of interpreters and may therefore be awarded to the prevailing party in a federal lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6).

Certiorari stage documents:

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Granted )

Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. represents Achmed et al. and the Center for Justice and Accountability as amici curiae in support of the petitioners.
Docket: 10-1491
Issue(s): (1) Whether the issue of corporate civil tort liability under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is a merits question or instead an issue of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) whether corporations are immune from tort liability for violations of the law of nations such as torture, extrajudicial executions or genocide may instead be sued in the same manner as any other private party defendant under the ATS for such egregious violations; and (3) whether and under what circumstances the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, allows courts to recognize a cause of action for violations of the law of nations occurring within the territory of a sovereign other than the United States.

Certiorari stage documents:

Morris v. Virginia

Docket: 10-1498
Issue(s): (1) Whether Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively to ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised on collateral review; and (2) whether Virginia provides adequate postconviction remedies when petitioner and others similarly situated are precluded from vindicating violations of the right to effective assistance of counsel under Padilla.

Certiorari stage documents:

Fisher v. United States Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. of Texas

Docket: 10-1518
Issue(s): Under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), a crime victim seeking to enforce a right under the Crime Victims' Rights Act may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals shall take up and decide such application forthwith. Does this provision entitle crime victims to ordinary appellate review of their claims instead of only limited mandamus review for clear and indisputable error?

Certiorari stage documents:

Bobby v. Dixon

Docket: 10-1540
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit contravened the directives of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) when it abandoned the "in custody" requirement of Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona; (2) whether the interviewer's state of mind has any bearing on whether a suspect's statement is voluntary under the established law of Oregon v. Elstad; and (3) whether the Sixth Circuit exceeded its authority under AEDPA when it condemned the use of the "prisoner's dilemma" where the police indicate that favorable treatment will go to the first suspect who cooperates as an unconstitutionally coercive interrogation tactic.

Certiorari stage documents:

Morrison Enterprises, LLC v. Dravo Corp.

Docket: 11-30
Issue(s): Whether a party that has incurred response costs either pursuant to an administrative order, or to a consent decree following suit under § 106 or § 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), may ever seek to recover those "compelled" costs under §107(a), or whether the exclusive remedy for cost recovery is contribution under CERCLA § 113(f)?

Certiorari stage documents:

Wetzel v. Lambert

Docket: 11-38
Issue(s): Did the Third Circuit fail to properly apply the habeas deference standard to the state court's rejection of respondent's Brady claim?

Certiorari stage documents:

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Christa Culver, Petitions to watch | Conference of September 26, 2011, SCOTUSblog (Sep. 2, 2011, 7:14 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/09/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-september-26-2011-2/