Federal Judiciary

Petitions to Watch | Conference of 3.19.10

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

This edition of ?Petitions to Watch? features cases up for consideration at the Justices? private conference on Friday, March 19.  As always, it lists the petitions on the Court?s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.  Links to all previous editions are available in our SCOTUSwiki archive.?

Title: Moran v. United States
Docket: 09-392
Issues: (1) Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(C)–permitting a defendant to comment on “matters relating to an appropriate sentence”–entitles a defendant to be notified prior to the pronouncement of sentence that sex offender special conditions of supervised release are contemplated; (2) whether 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3?s requirement of a reasonable relationship between special conditions of supervised release and a defendant?s offense of conviction, history, and characteristics and the purposes of sentencing is satisfied when sex offender special conditions are imposed based on a single sex offense in the remote past; and (3) whether a special condition of supervised release prohibiting internet access without permission is an undue deprivation of liberty under the previous two rules when there is no connection between the internet and the offense of conviction or any prior alleged wrongdoing.

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

Title: Kentucky v. Cardine and Curry
Docket: 09-419
Issue: Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the retrial of a defendant after the trial court sua sponte declares a mistrial absent manifest necessity and the defendant does not object prior to the actual discharge of the jury.

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Kentucky)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

Title: Beard v. Thomas
Docket: 09-527
Issue: (1) Whether the respondent was prejudiced in his criminal trial by the absence of supposedly mitigating evidence, when the mitigating nature of that evidence is disputed, when he refused to allow any mitigation evidence, and when none of this supposedly favorable evidence has even been subject to a hearing or cross-examination; and (2) whether the Third Circuit unlawfully failed to apply the deference standard, when both the courts below rejected the respondent’s ineffectiveness claim on the merits.

• Opinion below (3d Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

Title: Kiyemba v. Obama
Docket: 09-581
Issues: (1) Whether a federal court exercising its habeas jurisdiction may require the executive to provide thirty days of advance notice of a proposed transfer of petitioners–all of whom are conceded not enemy combatants–from Guantanamo to another location in order to allow the court to adjudicate any claims petitioners may have opposing the transfer; and (2) whether a federal court may issue an All Writs Act injunction to protect its jurisdiction only when the separate standards for an injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 have also been met.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioners’ reply
• Amicus brief of Legal Historians and Habeas Corpus Experts

Title: Ryan v. Nash
Docket: 09-686
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2), which provides that indigent capital defendants pursuing federal habeas relief “shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys,” entitles defendants to stay an appeal if they are not competent to assist their counsel?

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of the National Crime Victim Law Institute et al.

Title: Townes v. Jarvis
Docket: 09-729
Issue: Whether the holding of Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002)–which implicitly recognized that those subject to discrimination will rarely, if ever, be able to allege in the complaint specific facts that would, if proven, establish the intent of others who have discriminated–is still good law after the Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal.

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

Title: Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
Docket: 09-834
Issue: Is an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act protected conduct under the anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)?

• Opinion below, opinion below denying rehearing (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

The Court has re-listed the following cases from previous editions of Petitions to Watch for the conference of March 19, 2010.  If any other petitions are redistributed between now and the conference, we will add them below as soon as their redistribution is noted on the docket.

• Connick v. Thompson (09-571): Originally conference of 2.19.10

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on March 12, 2010 (boomark / email).