Federal Judiciary

Today’s Orders

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

The Court has granted certiorari in the following 10 cases. The full order list is available here.

Docket: 08-974
Title: Lewis et al. v. City of Chicago
Issue: When an employer adopts an employment practice that discriminates against African Americans in violation of Title VII?s disparate impact provision, must a plaintiff file an EEOC charge within 300 days after the announcement of the practice, or may a plaintiff file a charge within 300 days after the employer?s use of the discriminatory practice?

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of the United States
• Supplemental brief of respondent

Docket: 08-1301
Title: Carr v. United States
Issue: Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failure to register when the defendant?s underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act?s enactment ; whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA?s enactment.

• Opinion below (7^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

Docket: 08-1322
Title: Astrue v. Ratliff
Issue: Whether an ?award of fees and other expenses? under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), is payable to the ?prevailing party? rather than to the prevailing party?s attorney, and therefore is subject to an offset for a pre-existing debt owed by the prevailing party to the United States.

• Opinion below (8^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

Docket: 08-1402
Title: Berghuis, Warden v. Smith
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply ?clearly established Federal law? under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when it rejected a state prisoner?s Sixth Amendment fair cross-section claim and whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the comparative-disparity test (for evaluating the difference between the numbers of African Americans in the community as compared to the venires).

• Opinion below (6^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply
• Brief amici curiae of Connecticut, and Six Other States

Docket: 08-1470
Title: Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit expanded the Miranda rule to prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them.

• Opinion below (6^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Petitioner?s reply

Docket: 08-1498 ; 09-89
Title: Holder, Attorney General v. Humanitarian Law Project ; Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 2339B(a)(1), which prohibits the knowing provision of ?any *** service, *** training, [or] expert advice or assistance,? to a designated foreign terrorist organization, is unconstitutionally vague; Whether the criminal prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) on the provision of ?expert advice or assistance? ?derived from scientific [or] technical ? knowledge? and ?personnel? are unconstitutional with respect to speech that furthers only lawful, nonviolent activities of proscribed organizations.

08-1498

• Opinion below (9^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply
• Brief amici curiae of James J. Carey, et al.

09-89

• Conditional cross-petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Cross-petitioner?s reply

Docket: 08-1521
Title: McDonald, et al.  v. City of Chicago
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.

• Opinion below (7^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (08-1521)
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply (08-1521)
• Brief amicus curiae of Arms Keepers
• Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al
• Brief amicus curiae of  National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
• Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union
• Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, and Cato Institute
• Brief amicus curiae of California
• Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc.,et al.
• Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Professors

Docket: 08-1529 ; 08-1547
Title: Migliaccio, et al. v. Castaneda et al. ; Henneford v. Castaneda et al.
Issue: Does 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) make the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for claims arising from medical care and related functions provided by Public Health Service personnel, thus barring Bivens actions?

• Opinion below (9^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of United States
• Petition for certiorari (08-1547)
• Petitioner’s reply (08-1547)
• Brief amicus curiae of Commissioned Officers Association of the United States Public Health Service, Inc. (08-1547)

Docket: 08-1555
Title: Samantar v. Bashe Abdi Yousuf, et al.
Issue: . Whether a foreign state?s immunity from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1604, extends to an individual acting in his official capacity on behalf of a foreign state and whether an individual who is no longer an official of a foreign state at the time suit is filed retains immunity for acts taken in the individual?s former capacity as an official acting on behalf of a foreign state.

• Opinion below (4^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

Docket: 08-1569
Title: United States v. O?Brien and Burgess
Issue: Whether the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) to a 30-year minimum when the firearm is a machinegun is an element of the offense that must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or instead a sentencing factor that may be found by a judge by the preponderance of the evidence.

• Opinion below (1^st Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on September 30, 2009 (boomark / email).