At its November 22 Conference, the Court will consider such issues as the rights of secured creditors in bankruptcy, the “outside sales” exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act,  and the effect of the discovery of a warrant on an illegal seizure.  This edition of “Petitions to watch” features 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.

___________________________________________________________________________

The Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York

Docket: 11-386
Issue(s): (1) Whether the government engages in viewpoint discrimination when it excludes expression that is in all other respects permitted in the forum because it is labeled a “religious worship service”; (2) whether the government creates a designated public forum by opening its facilities broadly to any expression “pertaining to the welfare of the community,” so that it must justify the content-based exclusion of religious expression by a compelling state interest; (3) whether government concern about violating the Establishment Clause, and not an actual violation of that Clause, justifies the exclusion of private religious expression from a generally open forum; and (4) whether the government policy expressly excluding “religious worship services” from this forum violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Certiorari stage documents:

Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

Docket: 11-379
Issue(s): (1) Whether, under the doctrine formulated in this Court’s earlier decision in this case, the City bears the burden of proving that its challenged ordinance would not simply cause the affected movie arcades to close; and (2) whether, in a First Amendment challenge to an adult zoning ordinance, a plaintiff should prevail on summary judgment where the uncontroverted evidence establishes that the ordinance would operate to eliminate the affected movie arcade venues.

Certiorari stage documents:

City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.

Docket: 11-245
Issue(s): Does the burden-shifting framework for evaluating the First Amendment constitutionality of a dispersal ordinance relating to adult businesses, established in an earlier decision in this matter, Alameda Books v. City of Los Angeles, 535 U.S. 425 (2002), require upholding a municipal zoning ordinance which prohibits the operation of more than one adult entertainment business at a single location when plaintiffs challenging the regulation cannot, at the summary judgment stage of proceedings, produce "actual and convincing" evidence casting "direct doubt" on the city's rationale for the regulation?

Certiorari stage documents:

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Bedell

Docket: 11-238
Issue(s): (1) Whether the protective order’s prior restraints on speech and document destruction requirements survive First Amendment scrutiny under Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984), and Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011); and (2) whether the protective order violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Due Process Clause when the order conflicts with multiple state and federal laws and regulations regarding document retention and reporting duties.

Certiorari stage documents:

Faulkner v. United States

Docket: 11-235
Issue(s): Whether discovery by the police of an outstanding arrest warrant during a concededly unconstitutional seizure of a person purges the taint of the illegal seizure, permitting the government to introduce at trial evidence obtained as a direct consequence of an arrest on the outstanding warrant?

Certiorari stage documents:

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. West Virginia

Docket: 11-224
Issue(s): Whether, when a state attorney general claims parens patriae authority and sues out-of-state defendants on behalf of private individuals under a state statute which requires that any recovery go to those individuals rather than the state, the defendants may remove the case as a “class action” under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453 (CAFA) on the ground that such private individuals are real parties in interest.

Certiorari stage documents:

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (Granted )

Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for and/or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents the petitioners in this case.
Docket: 11-204
Issue(s): (1) Whether deference is owed to the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption and related regulations; and (2) whether the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Certiorari stage documents:

RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank (Granted )

Docket: 11-166
Issue(s): Whether a debtor may pursue a Chapter 11 plan that proposes to sell assets free of liens without allowing the secured creditor to credit bid, but instead providing it with the indubitable equivalent of its claim under Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Certiorari stage documents:

Virginia v. Sebelius

Docket: 11-420
Issue(s): (1) Whether the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred when it became the first circuit to deny that a state of the Union has standing to defend its own code of laws; (2) whether the Fourth Circuit erred, and opened a circuit split, when it construed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act contrary to the construction placed upon it by the chief law officer of the Commonwealth of Virginia by holding it to be merely symbolic and therefore not a real law capable of giving rise to a sovereign injury; (3) whether the Fourth Circuit erred when it read the political question doctrine prong of Massachusetts v. Mellon as having continued vitality so as to prevent a state from challenging an enactment of the United States on enumerated powers grounds; and (4) whether the power claimed by Congress in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to mandate that a citizen purchase a good or service from another citizen is unconstitutional because the claimed power exceeds the outer limits of the Commerce Clause even as executed by the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Certiorari stage documents:

Rodriguez v. Sebelius

Docket: 11-129
Issue(s): (1) Whether the contingent or non-contingent nature of attorneys’ fees is a proper consideration in fixing the lodestar amount under federal fee-shifting statutes; and (2) whether Vaccine Act litigation is sufficiently complex so as to warrant awards of attorneys’ fees at prevailing market rates commonly awarded in other federal fee-shifting litigation.

Certiorari stage documents:

Dallas v. L.J.

Docket: 11-109
Issue(s): (1) Whether a court misapplies the flexible standard demanded by Rule 60(b)(5) when it subordinates "sensitive federalism concerns" implicated by a long-running institutional-reform decree to the court's insistence that its previous decisions must be "dead wrong" before a state may obtain relief based on changes in the governing law; and (2) whether a federal court lacks power to enter and enforce a wide-ranging injunction based on a single state-plan element of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, which makes federal funding conditional on a requirement that the state plan include certain elements to "gain the approval of" the Secretary of the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

Certiorari stage documents:

Southern Union Company v. United States (Granted )

Docket: 11-94
Issue(s): Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendment principles that this Court established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, and its progeny, apply to the imposition of criminal fines.

Certiorari stage documents:

Amy v. Monzel

Docket: 11-85
Issue(s): (1) Whether the “proximate result” requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 2259, which guarantees restitution to child pornography victims, applies only to the losses described in subsection 2259(F), which provides restitution for “any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense,” or instead extends to the losses described in subsections (A) through (E) as well; and (2) whether a crime victim has a statutory right to ordinary appellate review of a claim that a district court violated her rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.

Certiorari stage documents:

Hardy v. Cross

Docket: 11-74
Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Supreme Court precedent by overriding state court determinations of law and fact and awarding habeas relief based on a constitutional rule that this Court has never recognized and that the Seventh Circuit derived entirely from its own precedent.

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:

Mortimer Howard Trust v. Park Village Apartment Tenants Association

Docket: 11-36
Issue(s): Whether, at the expiration of a Section 8 housing contract between a private owner and the Department of Housing and Urban Development and after statutory notice is provided, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(t)(B)’s clause stating that the assisted family "may elect to remain" bars the owner from evicting a tenant for failing to pay the portion of the rent previously paid by HUD during the term of the contract.

Certiorari stage documents:

Cash v. Maxwell

Docket: 10-1548
Issue(s): (1) Whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court may grant habeas relief on a claim that the state-court conviction rested on perjured testimony absent proof that the prosecution knew that the challenged testimony was false and when the state post-conviction court deemed the testimony truthful; and (2) whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief on a claim alleging suppression of exculpatory evidence when that evidence was unknown to law enforcement officials working on the case and without considering whether the state court might have rejected this claim.

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:

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Kiera Flynn, Petitions to watch | Conference of November 22, 2011, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 22, 2011, 2:02 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-november-22-2011/