Supreme Court docket: Weekly update

43 share

40 share is excellent

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:

13-604 Heien v. North Carolina

 May a police officer's mistake of law provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop?

• Brief for the State of Wisconsin, Eighteen Other States, and the District of Columbia in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the United States in Support of Respondent

13-628 Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky v. John Kerry, Secretary of State

Is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of  Birth Abroad and on a United States passport unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the president's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him"?

• Brief for the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (R.A.) in Support of Petitioner and Reversal
• Brief for the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Professors of Foreign Relations and Constitutional Law in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Public Citizen, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Zionist Organization of America in Support of Petitioner

 13-640 Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Indy Mac MRS, Inc., et al.

 Does the filing of a putative class action serve, under the American Pipe rule, to suspend the three-year time limitation in § 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members?

• Brief for Business Roundtable in Support of Respondents

13-684 Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans

Does a borrower exercise his right to rescind a transaction in satisfaction of the requirements of Section 1635 by "notifying the creditor" in writing within three years of the consummation of the transaction, as the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or must a borrower file a lawsuit within three years of the consummation of the transaction, as the First, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held?

• Brief for AARP, National Consumer Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and Center for Responsible Lending in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the States of New York, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, in Support of Petitioners

13-719 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC, and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC v. Brandon W. Owens

Must a defendant seeking removal to federal court include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is including the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?

• Brief for Respondent, Brandon W. Owens

13-894 Department of Homeland Security v. Robert J. MacLean

Whether certain statutory protections codified at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A), which are inapplicable when an employee makes a disclosure "specifically prohibited by law," can bar an agency from taking an enforcement action against an employee who intentionally discloses Sensitive Security Information.

•  Brief for Petitioner, Department of Homeland Security

13-1010 M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett

1. When construing collective bargaining agreements in Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, may courts presume that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits means the parties intended those benefits to vest (and therefore continue indefinitely), as the Sixth Circuit holds; or should require a clear statement that health-care benefits are intended to survive the termination of the collective bargaining agreement, as the Third Circuit holds; or should courts require at least some language in the agreement that can reasonably support an interpretation that health-care benefits should continue indefinitely, as the Second and Seventh Circuits hold?
2. Do, as the Sixth Circuit has held in conflict with the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits, different rules of construction apply when determining whether health-care benefits have vested in pure ERISA plans versus collectively bargained plans.

• Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Business Roundtable in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the Council on Labor Law Equality and the Society for Human Resource Management in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Erisa Industry Committee and the American Benefits Council in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Goldstein & Russell, P.C., in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for National Association of Manufacturers in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Whirlpool Corporation in Support of Petitioners

13-6827 Holt v. Hobbs

I. Does the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no beard grooming policy violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

II. Does a ½ inch beard satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.

III. Does the no beard grooming policy violates Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice Islam as he believes it is supposed to be practiced by the wearing of the beard.

•  Brief for Respondents, Ray Hobbs, et al.