The Court is currently in its summer recess; it is scheduled to resume oral arguments in October.  It does not have any Conferences scheduled until the September 24, 2012 Conference, when the Justices will formally be back at work and will select cases from the summer lists for review during the October 2012 Term.  Because our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be quite large, we will feature the petitions in installments over the next few months.  This set of petitions includes such issues as mental illness and the excessive use of force by police, substantive due process rights for the civilly committed, the “routine booking” exception to Miranda v. Arizona, the private right of action for treble damages in antitrust actions, and personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations.

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.

Chevron v. Naranjo

Docket: 11-1428
Issue(s): Whether the Second Circuit was correct that the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., does not permit a party to assert a defense to suit anticipatorily where the underlying substantive statute does not itself authorize such declaratory relief.

Certiorari stage documents:

Elizondo v. City of Garland

Docket: 11-1375
Issue(s): (1) Whether, when an officer precipitates a violent confrontation ending in his use of force, his own conduct making that force necessary should be considered among the totality of circumstances determining whether the force was constitutionally excessive; and (2) whether an individual’s obvious mental illness reduces the government’s justification for using force against him during an encounter with police.

Certiorari stage documents:

Ketterer v. Yellow Transportation, Inc.

Docket: 11-1361
Issue(s): Whether, when co-workers harass an employee who engaged in protected conduct on behalf of minority employees, an employer can be liable under Title VII’s broad antiretaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 3(a), when it knew or should have known about the harassment yet tolerated it by failing to take action (as nearly all the circuits have held) or must the coworker harassment also have been “in furtherance of the employer’s business” (as only the Fifth Circuit has held).

Certiorari stage documents:

Strutton v. Meade

Docket: 11-1329
Issue(s): Whether an individual, civilly committed for being a “sex offender,” or for otherwise exhibiting a mental abnormality posing a danger to others, has a substantive due process right to treatment that may ameliorate the danger posed by his abnormality, particularly where -- as here -- the withheld treatment was designed with the intention of providing a path to at least a conditional release from custody.

Certiorari stage documents:

Alford v. Texas

Docket: 11-1318
Issue(s): Whether the “routine booking” exception to Miranda v. Arizona applies: (1) unless the officer objectively should have known that his question was likely to elicit an incriminating response, as some courts have held; (2) unless the officer’s intent was to elicit an incriminating response, as other courts have held; or (3) to all questions that serve a legitimate administrative function, regardless of whether the officer should have known that the questions would likely elicit an incriminating response, as still other courts, including the court below, have held.

Certiorari stage documents:

SigmaPharm, Inc. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.

Docket: 11-1275
Issue(s): Whether the Third Circuit has erred in restricting the availability of Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a) -- which grants a private right of action for treble damages to “any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws” -- with a general rule that “[a]s a general matter, the class of plaintiffs capable of satisfying the antitrust-injury requirement is limited to consumers and competitors in the restrained market and to those whose injuries are the means by which the defendants seek to achieve their anticompetitive ends.”

Certiorari stage documents:

Libertarian Party of Washington State v. Washington State Grange

Docket: 11-1266
Issue(s): (1) Whether, by denying minor parties, including the Libertarian Party, virtually all access to the general election ballot, Washington’s Initiative I-872 -- which provides that the top two votegetters for each office advance to the general election -- violates the constitutional rights of minor parties and voters; (2) whether, by denying the Libertarian Party the right to disavow false candidacies or to acknowledge its nominee on the ballot or in any official publication, I-872 – which provides that candidates for office shall be identified on the ballot by their self-designated “party preference” -- violates the associational rights of the Libertarian Party; (3) whether, by denying the Libertarian Party the right to disavow false candidacies or to acknowledge its nominee on the ballot or in any official publication, I-872 denies the Libertarian Party trademark protection guaranteed by federal law; and (4) whether the unauthorized use of the trademarked name “Libertarian Party” by the State on election ballots to indicate “party preference” of unaffiliated candidates constitutes competition with the Libertarian Party in violation of the Lanham Act?

Certiorari stage documents:

Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny’s, Inc.

Docket: 11-1170
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Court should resolve the conflict in circuits regarding how to determine whether attorneys are liable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for “unreasonably and vexatiously” multiplying proceedings, where some circuits employ a “reasonably should have known test,” others require a finding of “reckless conduct,” and still others, while agreeing that “bad faith” on the part of attorneys is a requirement, disagree as to whether an objective or subjective test is to be employed; and (2) if petitioners’ behavior was sanctionable under § 1927, whether it was proper for the lower court, in conflict with the Fourth and Tenth Circuits, to affirm a judgment requiring payment of all fees and expenses incurred in the collateral sanctions proceeding amounting to more than 40% of the hours sought, not just the statutorily mandated “excess fees,” without finding that petitioners’ defense was also unreasonable and vexatious.

Certiorari stage documents:

Martel v. Tuite

Docket: 11-1094
Issue(s): Whether a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner without determining that the state court’s “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” ruling was objectively unreasonable.

Certiorari stage documents:

Daimler AG v. Bauman (Granted )

Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.
Docket: 11-965
Issue(s): Whether it violates due process for a court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based solely on the fact that an indirect corporate subsidiary performs services on behalf of the defendant in the forum state.

Certiorari stage documents:

Cases involving lawyers from Goldstein & Russell (listed without regard to the likelihood of being granted):

Allshouse v. Pennsylvania

Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, are among the counsel to the petitioner in this case, which is listed without regard to the likelihood that it will be granted.
Docket: 11-1407
Issue(s): Whether a child’s statements in an interview with a child protection agency worker investigating suspicions of past abuse are “testimonial” evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington.

Certiorari stage documents:

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Ben Cheng, Petitions to watch | Conference of September 24, 2012, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 26, 2012, 1:33 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-september-24-2012/