Issue: (1) Whether the Court should modify Mickens v. Taylor to apply the automatic reversal rule in Holloway v. Arkansas where (a) the prosecution advises a trial court that the appointment of a particular lawyer in a capital case to represent multiple defendants may create a conflict of interest; (b) the appointed lawyer informs the court that he is financially unable to appoint capitally certified counsel for each of the co-defendants; (c) the court acknowledges these conflicts of interest, but delegates resolution of them to the same lawyer; (d) the conflicted attorney then advocates in a manner intended to prevent death sentences for the co-defendants; and (e) the trial court declines to intervene; and (2) whether the Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion finding no "actual conflict" in this case demonstrates the need for this Court to address the split in the Circuit Courts concerning the standard for determining whether "an actual conflict of interest adversely affected [a] lawyer’s performance" and thereby settle an important question of federal constitutional law.
On Monday, the justices met for their September 26 conference. They issued orders from this conference on Thursday. The court granted certiorari in nine cases, consolidating two. The October sitting will begin on October 3; the argument calendar for that sitting is available on the court's website.
Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami (1) Whether, by limiting suit to “aggrieved person[s],” Congress required that a Fair Housing Act plaintiff plead more than just Article III injury-in-fact; and (2) whether proximate cause requires more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies.
Moore v. Texas (1) Whether it violates the Eighth Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed.
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado Whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
BeavEx Inc. v. Costello Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts generally-applicable state laws that force motor carriers to treat and pay all drivers as “employees” rather than as independent contractors.