In its second order list from last week’s Conference, the Court today invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in five cases.  (In another post today, Lyle also discusses the order list, including some of the high-profile cases in which the Court either denied certiorari or declined to act.)  The Court called for the views of  the Solicitor General in the following cases:

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:

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:

Fein, Such, Kahn and Shepard, PC v. Allen

Docket: 10-1417
Issue(s): Is a communication from a debt collector to a debtor's attorney actionable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.?

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Goldstene

Docket: 10-1555
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause prohibit California's extraterritorial exercise of its police powers to require the use of specified low-sulfur fuels on foreign- and U.S.-flagged vessels engaged in foreign and interstate commerce while these ships are on the high seas; and (2) whether, by establishing the measure of California's seaward boundary at three geographical miles distant from its coast line, the Submerged Lands Act preempts California's regulations that require foreign- and U.S.-flagged vessels engaged in international and interstate commerce to use specified low-sulfur fuels while those ships are navigating outside of the state's three-mile seaward territorial boundary so established.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Sandy Creek Energy v. Sierra Club (No. 10-1333) (case page forthcoming)

Question presented: Whether, after construction of a power plant has begun in reliance on the issuance of a lawful preconstruction permit reflecting that there was no Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) requirement then in force, a new MACT determination requirement can be compelled during construction, contrary to EPA regulations and judicial interpretations of closely related provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline, Everything Else

Recommended Citation: Kali Borkoski, More details on today’s CVSGs, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 3, 2011, 11:43 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/10/more-details-on-today%e2%80%99s-cvsgs/