Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum (07-665), Pacific Bell Telephone Co. d/b/a AT&T California v. linkLine Communications (07-512) and order list
Greetings, Court fans!
Padilla v. Kentucky (08-651) (yes, Jose Padilla, but not the one you're thinking of), presents two questions for review: "(1) Whether the mandatory deportation consequences that stem from a plea to trafficking in marijuana, an ‘aggravated felony' under the INA, is a ‘collateral consequence' of a criminal conviction which relieves counsel from any affirmative duty to investigate and advise; and, (2) Assuming immigration consequences are ‘collateral,' whether counsel's gross misadvice as to the collateral consequence of deportation can constitute a ground for setting aside a guilty plea which was induced by the faulty advice."
Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive (08-604), involves the authority of courts to set aside an arbitration award under the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § § 151 et seq. The RLA provides that the Board's judgment shall be conclusive except for : (1) "failure... to comply" with the Act, (2) "failure.... to conform or confine" its order "to matters within... the [Board's] jurisdiction," and (3) "fraud or corruption" by a Board member. The questions presented are: "(1) Whether the Seventh Circuit erroneously held . . . that the RLA includes a fourth, implied exception that authorizes courts to set aside final arbitration awards for alleged violations of due process. (2) Whether the Seventh Circuit erroneously held that the Board adopted a ‘new' retroactive interpretation of the standards governing its proceedings in violation of due process."
Smith v. Spisak (08-724), which asks: "(1) Did the Sixth Circuit contravene the directives of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") and Carey v. Musladin, 127 S. Ct. 649 (2006), when it applied Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), to resolve in a habeas petitioner's favor questions that were not decided or addressed in Mills? (2) Did the Sixth Circuit exceed its authority under AEDPA when it applied United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), to presume that a habeas petitioner suffered prejudice from several allegedly deficient statements made by his trial counsel during closing argument instead of deferring to the Ohio Supreme Court's reasonable rejection of the claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)?"
Johnson v. United States (08-6925), where the Court granted cert limited to Questions 1 and 2: "(1) Whether, when a state's highest court holds that a given offense . . . does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force, that holding is binding on federal courts in determining whether that same offense qualifies as a ‘violent felony' under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, which defines ‘violent felony' as, inter alia, any crime that ‘has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.' (2) Whether this Court should resolve a circuit split on whether a prior state conviction for simple battery is in all cases a ‘violent felony' . . . [under the ACCA]. Further, whether this court should resolve a circuit split on whether the physical force required is a de minimis touching . . . or whether the physical force required must be in some way violent in nature -that is the sort of force that is intended to cause bodily injury, or at a minimum likely to do so."
Federal Insurance Co. v. Saudi Arabia (08-640), where the Court would address the viability of lawsuits seeking to hold foreign governments and foreign officials and individuals liable for providing funds to support the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.
The Court likely will issue more decisions this week, so we'll be back in your inbox soon!