Supreme Court Weekly Update (from my In Box)

I intend this to be a weekly posting on those occasions when this review is included in e-mailings to me.  There was no review for the past two weeks  -  no e-mail, no review.  You can look for it on Sundays as a rule  --  blog editor.

PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases offers expert analysis of the issues, background, and significance of every case slated for argument in the Supreme Court.

As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:

10-9646 Miller v. Alabama and 10-9647 Jackson v. Hobbs

Does imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old child convicted of homicide violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments?

• Brief for the Juvenile Law Center, et al., in Support of Petitioners

11-166 Radlax Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank

May a Chapter 11 plan proposing an asset sale provide a secured creditor with the indubitable equivalent of its claim instead of allowing it to credit bid (i.e. bid its debt in lieu of cash)?     

• Brief for G. Eric Brunstad, Jr., in Support of Respondent

11-182 Arizona v. United States

Do federal immigration laws preclude state efforts at cooperative law enforcement and impliedly preempt provisions of Arizona S.B. 1070 on their face?

• Reply Brief for Petitioner State of Arizona
• Brief for Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Farm Workers of America, and Change to Win in Support of Respondents

11-192 United States v. Bormes

Does the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), waive the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to damages actions for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act? 

• Brief for Petitioner United States of America

11-246 Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band v. Patchak and 11-247 Salazar v. Patchak (consolidated)

1. Does the Quiet Title Act and its reservation of the sovereign immunity in suits involving "trust or restricted Indian lands" apply to all suits concerning land in which the United States "claims an interest," 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), as the Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or do they apply only when the plaintiff claims title to the land, as the D.C. Circuit held?
2. Can prudential standing to sue under federal law be based on either (i) the plaintiff’s ability to "police" an agency's compliance with the law or (ii) interests protected by a different federal statute than the one on which suit is based?

• Reply Brief for the Federal Petitioners
• Reply Brief for Petitioner Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomie Indians
• Brief for 28 California Community Groups in Support of Respondent

11-393 and 11-400 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services (Severability)

Does the Affordable Care Act's mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance exceed Congress's enumerated powers and, if so, to what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?

• Brief for Joella Swan, Dorothy Gephart, the United Mine Workers of America, the National Coalition of Black Lung and Respiratory Disease Clinics, Inc., and the National Black Lung Association in Support of Court-Appointed Amicus on Severability

11-465 Johnson v. Williams

1. Has a habeas petitioner's claim been "adjudicated on the merits" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) where the state court denied relief in an explained decision but did not expressly acknowledge a federal-law basis for the claim?

2. Under § 2254, may a federal habeas court (a) grant relief on the ground that the petitioner had a Sixth Amendment right to retain a biased juror on the panel and (b) reject a state court’s finding of juror bias because it disagrees with the finding and the reasons stated for it, even where the finding was rationally supported by evidence in the state-court record?

• Brief for the States of Illinois, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in Support of Petitioner

Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA.
Subscribe http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home.html
Unsubscribe Reply to this message from your e-mail address with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
Change of Address Send an e-mail to catherine.hawke@americanbar.org to inform us about new e-mail addresses.
Privacy Policy http://www.americanbar.org/utility/privacy.html

American Bar Association | 321 N Clark | Chicago, IL 60654 | 1-800-285-2221