Federal Judiciary

Petitions to watch | Conference of 10.29.10

By Anna Christensen

This edition of ?Petitions to watch? features cases up for consideration at the Justices? October 29 conference.  These are petitions raising issues that Tom has determined 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.

Title: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
Docket: 09-1159
Issue(s): Whether a federal contractor university?s statutory right under the Bayh-Dole Act in inventions arising from federally funded research can be terminated unilaterally by an individual inventor through a separate agreement purporting to assign the inventor?s rights to a third party.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Amicus brief of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation et al.
• Amicus brief of the Association of American Universities et al.
• Supplemental brief for respondents
• Petitioner's reply

CVSG Information:

• Invited: Jun 28, 2010
• Filed: Sep 28, 2010 (Grant)

Title: Rosillo-Puga v. Holder
Docket: 09-1367
Issue(s): Whether the regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) is invalid under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 because it denies immigrants who have departed the United States their statutory right to file a motion to reopen or reconsider an order of removability; and (2) whether the Tenth Circuit may deprive the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals of discretionary authority to sua sponte reconsider or reopen removal proceedings by denying a petition for review based on reasons not articulated in either the judge?s or BIA?s orders denying the motion in the first instance.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (10th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

Title: Mendiola v. Holder
Docket: 09-1378
Issue(s): Whether the regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) is invalid under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 because it denies immigrants who have departed the United States their statutory right to file a motion to reopen or reconsider an order of removability; and (2) whether the Tenth Circuit may deprive the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals of discretionary authority to sua sponte reconsider or reopen removal proceedings by denying a petition for review based on reasons not articulated in either the judge?s or BIA?s orders denying the motion in the first instance.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (10th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

Title: Shelby v. United States
Docket: 09-1554
Issue(s): 1) Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Yeager v. United States raises a ?colorable question? as to the correctness of the Fifth Circuit's decision it reversed or provides no ?basis to conclude that? it ?created an intervening change or ?correction? in the applicable law?; and 2) whether an appeal from the denial of double jeopardy relief following a judgment of acquittal may be not ?colorable? so as to destroy appellate jurisdiction, or whether appellate jurisdiction is a function of the category of order appealed.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (5th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
• Petitioner's reply

Title: Turner v. Price
Docket: 10-10
Issue(s): Whether an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of South Carolina)
• Petition for certiorari
• Amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al.
• Amicus brief for the Center for Family Policy and Practice, et al.
• Amicus brief of the Constitution Project
• Brief of South Carolina Department of Social Services in opposition (forthcoming)
• Brief of Rebecca Price in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

Title: Archstone Multifamily Series I Trust v. Niles Bolton Associates, Inc.
Docket: 10-103
Issue(s): Whether a federal statutory scheme that creates liability without regard to fault, that is silent with respect to the eventual allocation of liability among co-defendants, and that contains no express preemption provision impliedly preempts state-law claims for indemnification.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (4th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioners' reply

Title: Rivera-Martinez v. United States
Docket: 10-113
Issue(s): Whether sentences imposed following plea agreements under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) are (i) eligible for modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), (ii) categorically ineligible for modification, or (iii) eligible for modification on a case-by-case basis.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

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

Title: Fox v. Vice
Docket: 10-114
Issue(s): 1) Whether defendants can be awarded attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in an action based on a dismissal of a claim, when the plaintiff has asserted other interrelated and non-frivolous claims; and 2) whether it is improper to award defendants all of the attorney's fees they incurred in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, when the fees were spent defending non-frivolous claims that were intertwined with the frivolous claim.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (5th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

Title: SpeechNow.org v. FEC
Docket: 10-145
Issue(s): Whether, under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the federal government may require an unincorporated association that makes only independent expenditures to register and report as a political committee.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (DC Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioners' reply
• Amicus brief for Committee for Truth in Politics, et al.

Title: Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Hesse
Docket: 10-157
Issue(s): (1) Whether a federal court may review a state court judgment approving a class settlement where the state court did not explicitly address each specific claim that a class member might release as part of the settlement; and (2) whether a federal court may nullify state court rules, requiring class members to opt out of a proposed state class settlement, by permitting the class members to maintain a subsequent federal action asserting claims released by the state class settlement from which the class members chose not to exclude themselves.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

Title: PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana
Docket: 10-218
Issue(s): 1) Whether the constitutional test for determining whether a section of a river is navigable for title purposes requires a trial court to determine, based on evidence, whether the relevant stretch of the river was navigable at the time the State joined the Union; and 2) whether, when a hydropower project is licensed under the Federal Power Act, a State's attempt to claim title and impose rent obligations for use of the riverbeds is preempted.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Montana)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief for Professors David M. Emmons, Thomas Noel, Charles E. Rankin, Carlos A. Schwantes, and David M. Wrobel
• Amicus brief for the Montana Farm Bureau Federation and the Cato Institute
• Amicus brief for the Edison Electric Institute, National Hydropower Association, and Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington
• Amicus brief for the Montana Water Resources Association
• Petitioner's reply

DISCLOSURE: Howe & Russell and Akin Gump represent parties in the two cases below; these cases are listed here without regard to their chances of being granted.

Title: National Football League v. Williams
Docket: 09-1380
Issue(s): Whether, when federal subject matter jurisdiction is not in question, and thus principles of ordinary, rather than complete, preemption are applicable, defenses that require analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement may substantively preempt state-law claims under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, or whether such defenses are categorically irrelevant to preemption analysis.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (8th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioners' reply
• Amicus brief of Major League Baseball et al.

Title: Allshouse v. Pennsylvania
Docket: 09-1396
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 (2004).

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania, and The Defender Association of Philadelphia
• Petitioner's reply

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on October 25, 2010 (boomark / email).