John Elwood previews next Monday’s likely relists.
With my long-awaited argument ultimately out of the way, my groomings will no longer impede me from procreating humorous and instructive uprights on the relisted suits the Supreme Court is considering; instead, my deficiency of aptitude will.
We had reasonably little push at the last meeting. We got an sentiment respecting the refusal of certiorari in two cases that had been relisted five times. And one brand-new grant in a case involving Yeezy’s latest personality.
But things are afoot with respect to some of the reiterate relists. Remember United States v. Wheeler, 18-420? That’s one of four specimen( all on their third relist) now before special courts that present the question whether a hostage whose 28 U. S.C. SS 2255 motion challenging the coming into force of a statutory minimum was disavowed based on route instance may later endeavour habeas relief on the soil that the circuit’s interpreting of the related regulations has changed. On the day before forum, the attorney general wrote the court a character to tell it that Gerald Wheeler had that unusually daylight acquired habeas relief and been resentenced to duration performed; the government argued that “the grant of habeas aid to diminish[ Wheeler’s] term of imprisonment means that this case continues to present a live arguing in respect of the permissibility of such relief.” But Wheeler’s counsel wrote the next day to argue that this “development counsels against a grant of certiorari at this time , not in favor of it.” That represents one more involving cause as the Supreme court decides which of the four actions represents the best vehicle for resolving this obviously repetition question. The likeliest beneficiary is Detric Lewis, the only other counseled hostage who is raising the same issue, and who earlier entered a supplemental brief that suggested that this kind of complication induced Wheeler’s case a bad vehicle.
On to the brand-new relists. The law frequently doesn’t relist bags until the Monday before the next seminar, which won’t pass until March 15. But we are going to be able make an informed guess about what the relisted instances will be. We think there will be two, both from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11 th Circuit.( There are also two cases which could potentially holds for United States v. Davis; one of the petitioners argues that his contingency is a better vehicle than Davis and should be heard in tandem with it. I think that’s unlikely to happen, but it’s hard to tell hampers from relists before the docket is modernized. Check back after the March 15 gathering .)
First up is Patterson v. Walgreen Co ., 18-349. Darrell Patterson is a Seventh-day Adventist. He are planned for labour as a teach for customer-care representatives one Saturday morning, during his sabbath. Walgreen proposed to accommodate Patterson the same acces it previously had, by allowing him to swap changes with someone else working in the same responsibility, but that person was unable to accommodate the substitution.( Patterson also says he was intimidated from swapping with that person .) After being unable to reach a supervisor, Patterson didn’t show up for the alter. Walgreens then offered to transfer Patterson back to the position he had previously held as a customer-care representative.( Patterson says this would have been a demotion; Walgreens suggests it was not shown that the transport would have implied a remunerate section .) Although Patterson could have been scheduled for Saturday transformations even after the number of jobs change, there would be a larger puddle of people for Patterson to swap shiftings with. After Patterson slumped the change in position, Walgreens shelled him.
Patterson indicted, saying he was fired because of his religion in violation of Title VII; Walgreens said it had reasonably altered Patterson’s religious watching and that doing any more would foist an “undue hardship on the to be carried out in the employer’s business, ” and that its conduct hence was lawful under 42 U. S.C. SS 2000 e( j )~ ATAGEND. The quarter court held that Walgreens had reasonably accommodated Patterson’s religious beliefs by tolerating him to swap alters and by offering him the possibility of transposing to other places that would make it easier to swap switchings when needed; it further am of the view that Walgreens would suffer unwarranted affliction by ensuring that Patterson would never be scheduled for Saturday hours. The 11 th Circuit corroborated. Patterson, supported by five amicus briefs( including one filed by the person who moved my admission to the Supreme Court bar during an earlier century ), argues that his dispute incriminates two route separates, one involving whether an adaptation is “reasonable, ” and the second largest involving when additional burdens constitutes “undue hardship” for an employer, and that it also devotes the court the opportunity to revisit some ill-considered communication in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison. The occurrence have so far been rescheduled twice, so clearly, someone at the court has been paying attention to it. Because the case seems moderately fact-intensive, it will be interesting to see whether it gets traction.
That creates us to our second obvious relist, Tharpe v. Ford, 18-6819. Keith Tharpe was imprisoned of assassinating his sister-in-law and crimes his estranged bride, and he was sentenced to death. After decision, Tharpe’s advocates acquired a “remarkable affidavit” from one juror that- in the words of the Supreme Court’s last ruling in such a case- “presents a strong circumstantial basis for the assertion that Tharpe’s race altered[ the juror’s] vote for a extinction verdict.”( About the mildest word in it was: “After studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls.”) After Tharpe’s sentence became final, he unsuccessfully challenged it on federal habeas, arguing that the affidavit was proof that racial animus may have affected the jury’s decision to convict him to fatality. But different districts tribunal rejected succor, stating that at the time of the trial, Georgia law vetoed charging the jury’s verdict with extrinsic sign. Although the district field have also pointed out that the Supreme Court had later regulated in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado that there is an exception to the no-impeachment settle when a captive comes forward with “compelling evidence” that ethnic animus be a major causing factor in the decision, it held that Pena-Rodriguez did not apply retroactively.
During this case’s last-place jaunt to the Supreme court, the justices held 6-3 that the 11 th Circuit had erred in holding that it is “indisputable among acceptable jurists that[ the juror’s] busines on the jury did not sexism Tharpe.”( Writing for himself and Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch in difference, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that the juror dedicated a few seconds declaration in which he said he had been drunk at the time he ratified the first declaration, and had voted as “hes had” because of the evidence and not his views of African-Americans; and that the other 11 jurors, two of whom were pitch-black, gave proof that hasten had played no role in the jury’s thoughts .) On remand, the appeals tribunal again disavowed a authorization of appealability, holding that Pena-Rodriguez did not apply retroactively to cases on collateral examine, and that Tharpe had failed to show cause to apologize his procedural default. Tharpe seeks to revisit that determination.
That’s all for this week. Thanks to Tom Mitsch for gathering the relists.
New Relists
Patterson v. Walgreen Co ., 18-349
Issues:( 1) Whether an accommodation that purely minimizes or has the potential to eliminate the conflict between occupation and religious purposes is “reasonable” per se, as the U.S. Tribunals of Pleads for the 1st, 4th and 11 th Circuits hold; does it instead create a jury question, as the U.S. Laws of Appeals for the 8th and 10 th Circuits hold; or must an accommodation fully eliminate the conflict in order to be “reasonable” as the U.S. Tribunals of Entreaties for the 2nd, 7th and 9th Circuits hold;( 2) whether supposition about possible future burdens is sufficient to meet the employer’s load in establishing “undue hardship, ” as the U.S. Tribunals of Appeals for the 5th, 6th and 11 th Circuits hold, or must the employer demonstrate an actual headache, as the U.S. Courtrooms of Entreaties for the 4th, 8th, 9th and 10 th Circuits hold; and( 3) whether the portion of Trans World Airline Inc. v. Hardison opining that “undue hardship” simply symbolizes something more than a “de minimis cost” should be rebutted or overruled.
( rescheduled before February 15 and February 22 conventions; likely relisted after the March 1 meet)
Issues:( 1) Whether Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado exploits retroactively to cases on collateral evaluation; and( 2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11 th Circuit deviated in concluding that no reasonable jurist could debate whether petitioner’s colorable demand- that his death sentence is invalid because a juror voted to impose it based on petitioner’s race- along with the Supreme Court’s interceding decision in Pena-Rodriguez constitute extraordinary circumstances under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60( b) that would warrant reopening petitioner’s federal habeas continuing to address the merits of that claim.
( likely relisted after the March 1 gathering)
Returning Relists
Issues:( 1) Whether Miller v. Alabama applies to discretionary a penalty of life without parole implemented for teenager offenses, as 16 nations have accommodated, or whether it is limited to obligatory a penalty of life without parole, as 10 others have found; and( 2) whether an evidentiary hearing is required to assess whether minors convicted before Miller are irreparably corrupt.
( rescheduled before the September 24 and November 30 consultations; relisted after the December 7, January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22 and March 1 powwows)
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit mistook in concluding–in direct come into conflict with Virginia’s highest court and other courts–that a decision of the State supreme court, Montgomery v. Louisiana, addressing whether a brand-new constitutional convention are set out in an earlier decision, Miller v. Alabama, applies retroactively on collateral discus may accurately be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the awfully ruler whose retroactivity was in question.
( relisted after the December 7, January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22 and March 1 conventions)
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 17-1618
Issue: Whether discrimination against an employee because of sex direction constitutes prohibited hire discrimination “because of … sex” ” for the purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. SS 2000 e-2.
( relisted after the January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22 and March 1 consultations)
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, 17-1623
Issue: Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. SS 2000 e-2( a )( 1 ), against engaging discrimination “because of … sex” includes discrimination based on an individual’s sex orientation.
( relisted after the January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22 and March 1 meets)
R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 18-107
Issues:( 1) Whether the word “sex” in Title VII’s proscription of all forms of discrimination “because of … copulation, ” 42 U.S.C. SS 2000 e-2( a )( 1 ), denote “gender identity” and included “transgender status” when Congress passed Title VII in 1964; and( 2) whether Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins vetoes employers from applying sex-specific plans according to their employees’ gender rather than their gender identity.
( relisted after the January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22 and March 1 consultations)
Box v. Schemed Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc ., 18-8
Issues:( 1) Whether a country may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal was still in the same demeanour as other human remains, i.e ., by burial or cremation; and( 2) whether a district may restrict abortions caused solely by the hasten, gender or disability of the fetus and require abortion physicians to inform patients of the prohibition.
( relisted after the January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22 and March 1 meets)
Issue: Whether the 14 th Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict.
( relisted after the January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22 and March 1 conventions)
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 18-587
Issues:( 1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s have also decided to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and( 2) whether DHS’ decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
( relisted after the January 11 forum; now impound)
Issues:( 1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s have also decided to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and( 2) whether DHS’ decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
( relisted after the January 11 gathering; now held)
Issues:( 1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s have also decided to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and( 2) whether DHS’ decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
( relisted after the January 11 gathering; now regard)
Issue: Whether the Eighth and 14 th Amendments permit a territory to abolish the lunacy defense.
( relisted after the January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22 and March 1 conventions; record solicited and received)
Issues:( 1) Whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act expressly pre-empts the states from expending any message participated on or appended to a federal Form I-9, including common datum such as appoint, appointment of delivery, and social security numeral, in a prosecution of any person( citizen or immigrant) when that same, commonly used information too appears in non-IRCA substantiates, such as territory tax forms, leases, and recognition applications; and( 2) if IRCA disallows the states from working all such knowledge for any purpose, whether Congress has the constitutional capability to so universally pre-empt the states from employing their traditional police powers to prosecute territory ordinance crimes. CVSG: 12/04/ 2018.
( rescheduled before the January 4, January 11, and January 18 meets; relisted after the February 15, February 22 and March 1 conventions)
Issue: Whether a federal captive may register a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. SS 2241 in order to increase justifications that were foreclosed by tying( but fallacious) tour precedent at the time of his direct entreaty and original application for post-conviction succour under 28 U. S.C. SS 2255, but that are meritorious in light of a subsequent determination invalidating that unfounded precedent.
( rescheduled before the December 3 meet; relisted after the February 15, February 22 and March 1 conferences)
United States v. Wheeler, 18-420
Issue: Whether a hostage whose 28 U. S.C. SS 2255 motion challenging the applicability of a statutory minimum was disclaimed based on route instance may later aim habeas relief on the grind that the circuit’s reading of the related statutes has changed.
( relisted after the February 15, February 22 and March 1 gatherings)
Delancy v. Pastrana, 18-5773
Issue: Whether a captive whose 28 U. S.C. SS 2255 motion challenging the coming into force of a statutory minimum was disclaimed based on route precedent may later seek habeas comfort on the foot that the circuit’s reading of the related regulations has changed.
( relisted after the February 15, February 22 and March 1 seminars)
Dusenbery v. Holt, 18-5781
Issue: Whether a captive whose gesture under 28 U. S.C. SS 2255 challenging the applicability of a statutory minimum was affirmed based on route instance may later aim habeas aid on the soil that the circuit’s interpretation of the related regulations has changed.
( relisted after the February 15, February 22 and March 1 powwows)
***
Past disputes linked to in this berth 😛 TAGEND
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855( 2017) Trans World Airline, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63( 1977)
The post Relist Watch loomed first on SCOTUSblog.
Read more: scotusblog.com
Recent Comments