Author: Maureen Johnston

The petition of the day is: Scott v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 79 13-841 Issue: (1) Whether a state may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, condition government employment on an employee or job applicant’s consent to suspicionless drug testing; and (2) whether suspicionless drug testing of...

The petition of the day is: Native Wholesale Supply Company v. Idaho 13-838 Issue: (1) Whether under circumstances in which a state is admittedly precluded from regulating an Indian it is also precluded from regulating a corporation wholly owned by an Indian and organized under the laws of a federally recognized...

At its Conference on April 18, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as suspicionless drug testing as a condition of government employment, the scope of review for claims of qualified immunity, and the Second Amendment right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues.  Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.

The petition of the day is: Simmons v. Sabine River Authority of Louisiana 13-815 Issue: Whether the Federal Power Act (FPA) preempts petitioners' property damage tort and takings claims caused by the operation of the licensee of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensed dam project, where the provisions of the FPA...

The petition of the day is: Arizona v. Valle del Sol, Inc. 13-806 Issue: (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing and have established the requisite imminent risk of irreparable harm to obtain an injunction of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2929, which makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly “(1)...

The petition of the day is: Exxon Mobil Corporation v. City of New York 13-842 Issue: (1) Whether a claim is ripe when it is predicated on a plaintiff’s potential future injury and mere good faith intent to take steps in fifteen to twenty years that could, depending on a chain...

The petition of the day is: Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens 13-719 Issue: Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or whether it is enough to allege the required “short and plain statement of...

The petition of the day is: Walia v. Dewan 13-722 Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in this case, which is listed without regard to the likelihood that it will be granted. Issue: Whether and when the Federal Arbitration...

The petition of the day is: Donat v. Honeycutt 13-912 Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit contravened 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) when it granted habeas relief even though there is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent which holds that in respondent’s case the state violated the Sixth Amendment; and (2) whether...

At its Conference on April 4, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as vacating arbitral awards for manifest disregard of law, a state’s waiver of harmless error issue in habeas proceedings, and the validity of a traffic stop based on the officer’s mistake of law. This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues.  Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.