Federal Judiciary

Petitions to Watch | Conference of 11.14.08

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on November 14. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, including the lists for the upcoming conferences of October 31 and November 7, visit our archives on SCOTUSwiki.

Conference of November 14, 2008

__________________

Docket: 08-40; 08-58; 08-67
Title: Hirko v. United States; Shelby v. United States; Yeager v. United States
Issue: Whether, under the Double Jeopardy Clause, the government may retry defendants acquitted of some charges on factually related counts on which the jury failed to reach a verdict.

• Opinion below (5th Circuit) (all cases)
• Petition for certiorari (08-40)
• Petition for certiorari (08-58)
• Petition for certiorari (08-67)
• Brief in opposition (all cases)
• Petitioner’s reply (08-40)
• Petitioner’s reply (08-58)
• Petitioner’s reply (08-67)
• Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Criminal Law Professors filed (all cases) (in support of petitioners)

__________________

Docket: 08-71
Title: Saintha v. Mukasey
Issue: Whether the provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act permitting judicial review of “questions of law” is limited to pure legal question or also includes the application of law to fact.

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

__________________

Docket: 08-192
Title: Abuelhawa v. United States
Issue: Whether a person who uses a cell phone to buy drugs solely for personal use (a misdemeanor) can be charged with the separate crime of using a phone to facilitate the sale of drugs (a felony).

• Opinion below (4th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amicus curiae of Center on the Administration of Criminal Law (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-195
Title: Orange County v. Pierce, et al.
Issue: Whether jails in a California county violated the 14th Amendment by providing certain prisoners only 90 minutes of exercise per week or the Americans with Disabilities Act by limiting access to facilities by disabled inmates.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition (awaiting from counsel)
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-205
Title: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Issue: Whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Senator Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters on on-demand to cable subscribers.

• Opinion below (District Court for the District of Columbia)
• Statement as to jurisdiction
• Motion to dismiss or affirm
• Reply of appellant
• Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-399 (capital case)
Title: Campbell v. Louisiana
Issue: Whether, under Wainwright v. Witt (1985), the trial judge improperly removed a juror despite a willingness to consider the death penalty in some circumstances while permitting a juror who reportedly had difficultly not imposing the death penalty.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Louisiana)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of academics (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on October 30, 2008 (boomark / email).