Federal Judiciary

Petitions to Watch | Conference of 1.23.09

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on January 23. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. (Thanks to Max Schwartz for assistance in compiling this week’s list.) To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, including the list for the upcoming conferences of January 9 and January 16, visit our archives on SCOTUSwiki.

Conference of January 23, 2008

__________________

Docket: 08-410
Title: Sorich v. United States
Issue: Whether, to establish “honest services mail fraud” under 18 U.S.C 1341 and 1346, the government must prove the defendant breached a fiduciary duty rooted in state law or intended private benefit for himself or a co-schemer, and, if not, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-473
Title: New Jersey v. Matthews
Issue: Whether, under Florida v. J.L. (2000), police may search a car after receiving an anonymous tip that someone in the car was flashing a gun.

• Opinion below (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 08-655
Title: Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. v. NGV Gaming, Ltd.
Issue: Whether the term “Indian lands” in 25 U.S.C. 81(a) applies only to land currently held in trust by the United States or also to land that will be held in trust.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-678
Title: Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter
Issue: Whether a party may immediately appeal a discovery order to disclose materials said to be covered by the attorney-client privilege.

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-680
Title: Maryland v. Shatzer, Sr.
Issue: Whether Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place nearly three years later.

• Opinion below (Court of Appeals of Maryland)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition (awaiting from counsel)

__________________

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on January 08, 2009 (boomark / email).