An update by Charles Ware, a principal in the national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
(1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in creating a new, heightened preemption test under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (“the Elections Clause”) that is contrary to the Supreme Court’s authority and conflicts with other circuit court decisions; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that under that test the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that requests persons who are registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote.
E.T. v. Cantil-Sakauye
Whether the abstention doctrine announced in O’Shea v. Littleton requires federal courts to refrain from adjudicating claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 whenever it would “intrude” upon state-court administration in any manner, as the court below held in joining the Second and Sixth Circuits, or whether that doctrine requires abstention only when adjudication requires supervising specific state-court events or displacing their “day-to-day operations,” as the D.C. and First Circuits have held.
Ryan v. James
Whether the Ninth Circuit’s panel opinion conflicts with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and this Court's decisions in Harrington v. Richter, and Cullen v. Pinholster insofar as it (a) treated AEDPA’s deferential standard as a waivable defense, rather than an inherent restriction on a federal court’s authority, (b) refused to find that the state post-conviction (PCR) court issued a merits ruling on respondent’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, when the state court expressly ruled that none of respondent’s PCR claims were colorable, and (c) considered evidence presented for the first time in federal court to grant habeas relief.
Gray v. Citigroup, Inc.
(1) Whether, under Section 1104(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a fiduciary of a plan that invests in qualified employer securities who knows, or should have known, that it is imprudent to invest in the employer’s securities is permitted to take no steps to protect plan participants and beneficiaries unless the employer is in a “dire situation” or near bankruptcy; and (2) whether, under Section 1104(a)(1)(B), a complaint by a plan participant against a fiduciary of such a plan need only plead facts making plausible the conclusion that the fiduciary failed to act with “care, skill, prudence, and diligence,” or whether instead the complaint must plead facts making plausible the conclusion that the fiduciary knew, or should have known, that the employer was in a “dire situation” or near bankruptcy.
Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action
(1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and (2) whether, if such claims are cognizable, they should be analyzed under the burden shifting approach used by three circuits, under the balancing test used by four circuits, under a hybrid approach used by two circuits, or by some other test: (a) what the correct test is for determining whether a prima facie case of disparate impact has been made; (b) how the statistical evidence should be evaluated; and (c) what the correct test is for determining when a defendant has satisfied its burden in a disparate impact case.
[www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ petitions we're watching]
No comments:
Post a Comment