Federal Judiciary

Today’s Orders | 2.23.09

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

Today?s orders list is now available here. The Court granted certiorari in six cases: Alvarez v. Smith (08-351) (limited to question 1), Salazar, Sec of Int. v. Buono (08-472), Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (08-604), Padilla v. Kentucky (08-651), Smith v. Spisak (08-724), and  Johnson v. US (08-6925) (limited to questions 1 and 2).  The filings available in these cases can be found after the jump

Docket: 08-351
Title: Alvarez v. Smith
Issue: Whether local law enforcement agencies may seize and retain custody indefinitely of personal property without judicial or administrative review of the lawfulness of the continued detention of the property.

• Opinion Below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

__________________

Docket: 08-472
Title: Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono
Issue:  Whether an individual has Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and if an Act of Congress directing the land be transferred to a private entity is a permissible accommodation.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, et al. (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-604
Title: Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen General Committee of Adjustment, Central Region
Issue: Whether the Railway Labor Act authorizes courts to set aside final arbitration awards for alleged violations of due process by the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and if the Board can adopt a new, retroactive interpretation of the standards governing its arbitration proceedings.

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of the National Railway Labor Conference, et al. (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-651
Title: Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel require a criminal defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client that pleading guilty to an aggravated felony will trigger mandatory, automatic deportation, and if that misadvice about deportation induces a guilty plea, can that misadvice amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and warrant setting aside the guilty plea?

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Kentucky)
• Petition for certiorari
• Petitioner?s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of Criminal and Immigration Law Professors, et al. (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-724
Title: Smith v. Spisak
Issue: Did the Sixth Circuit contravene AEDPA by improperly extending Mills v. Maryland?

• Opinion below (6^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

__________________

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on February 23, 2009 (boomark / email).