Petitions to watch | Conference of April 20

Posted Thu, April 19th, 2018 7:43 pm by Aurora Barnes

In its meeting of April 20, 2018, the court docket will look at petitions involving problems this sort of as regardless of whether the Eighth Modification needs an inmate to confirm an sufficient alternate strategy of execution when elevating an as-utilized obstacle to the state’s proposed strategy of execution based mostly on his rare and severe healthcare condition regardless of whether the Supreme Courtroom ought to overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause and regardless of whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a condition-regulation interpretation of an arbitration settlement that would authorize class arbitration based mostly entirely on typical language generally utilised in arbitration agreements.

17-5684

Issues: (1) No matter if the petitioner’s mandatory pointers sentence, which was enhanced underneath the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, and, if so, regardless of whether a conviction for burglary of a dwelling underneath Florida regulation qualifies as a “crime of violence” underneath U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s components clause and (2) regardless of whether printed orders issued by a circuit court docket of appeals underneath 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), and in the context of apps to file next or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, constitute binding precedent outdoors of that context.

17-654

Situation: Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., the Supreme Courtroom ought to vacate the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s judgment and instruct that court docket to remand the case to the district court docket with instructions to dismiss all promises for possible aid about pregnant unaccompanied minors.

17-8151

Issues: (1) No matter if a court docket evaluating an as-utilized obstacle to a state’s strategy of execution based mostly on an inmate’s rare and severe healthcare condition ought to presume that healthcare personnel are knowledgeable to control his condition and that procedure will go as supposed (2) regardless of whether proof evaluating a state’s strategy of execution with an alternate proposed by an inmate ought to be made available through a one witness, or regardless of whether a court docket at summary judgment ought to seem to the file as a entire to figure out regardless of whether a factfinder could conclude that the two strategies considerably differ in the pitfalls they pose to the inmate and (3) regardless of whether the Eighth Modification needs an inmate to confirm an sufficient alternate strategy of execution when elevating an as-utilized obstacle to the state’s proposed strategy of execution based mostly on his rare and severe healthcare condition.

17-7177

Situation: Whether, when a felony defendant has currently been convicted of an offense in a condition felony continuing, the United States might thereafter prosecute the defendant for the very same offense without the need of violating the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on double jeopardy.

17-7245

Situation: Whether the dying penalty, in and of by itself, violates the Eighth Modification in light of present-day requirements of decency and the geographic arbitrariness of its imposition.

17-961

Situation: Whether, or in what instances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that delivers no immediate aid to class customers supports class certification and comports with the necessity that a settlement binding class customers ought to be “fair, acceptable, and sufficient.”

17-646

Situation: Whether the Supreme Courtroom ought to overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.

17-6262

Situation: Whether, underneath the Supreme Court’s viewpoints in United States v. BookerJohnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended heavily on the distinction concerning advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes, the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing pointers is unconstitutionally obscure.

17-6769

Situation: Whether, underneath the Supreme Court’s viewpoints in United States v. BookerJohnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended heavily on the distinction concerning advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes, the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing pointers is unconstitutionally obscure.

17-988

Situation: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a condition-regulation interpretation of an arbitration settlement that would authorize class arbitration based mostly entirely on typical language generally utilised in arbitration agreements.

17-5503

Issues: (1) No matter if the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Modification prohibits the federal authorities from charging, convicting and sentencing a person who has currently been charged, convicted and sentenced in the court docket of a condition for much of the very same conduct and (2) regardless of whether the seriousness of the offense conduct is an correct consideration for a district court docket when fashioning a sentence on revocation of supervised release.

17-6877

Situation: Whether, following Johnson v. United States, in which the Supreme Courtroom invalidated the Armed Career Legal Act’s residual clause as unconstitutionally obscure, equivalent language in the residual clause of the formerly-mandatory sentencing pointers is likewise unconstitutional.

17-742

Situation: Whether the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s holding—granting qualified immunity to regulation-enforcement officers who stopped the petitioner from praying silently in her individual residence for the reason that there was no prior case regulation involving similar facts—conflicts with Hope v. Pelzer, which “expressly turned down a necessity that prior scenarios be ‘fundamentally similar’” or require “‘materially similar’ details.”

17-7517

Situation: Whether the assertion of typical principle that a burglary of a vehicle is not generic burglary inside of the that means of the Armed Career Legal Act for the reason that vehicles are not structures will allow generic burglary status when the vehicle is a dwelling put.

17-6883

Situation: Whether—when the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the 5th Circuit observed that the new mitigating proof found on federal habeas evaluate was “double-edged” and could not outweigh the considerable aggravating proof, and when it misapplied the standard for evaluating prejudice in a Wiggins claim—it denied the petitioner owing method.

17-5410

Situation: Whether the Supreme Courtroom ought to overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.

17-766

Situation: Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile composition that is tailored or utilised for overnight lodging can qualify as “burglary” underneath the Armed Career Legal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

17-765

Situation: Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile composition that is tailored or utilised for overnight lodging can qualify as “burglary” underneath the Armed Career Legal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

 

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Encouraged Citation:
Aurora Barnes,
Petitions to look at | Conference of April 20,
SCOTUSblog (Apr. 19, 2018, 7:43 PM),
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/petitions-to-look at-meeting-of-april-20/

Shares 0

Post Author: gupta

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *