Federal Judiciary

Notable Petitions

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

The “Notable Petitions” feature lists petitions that likely will later appear on our ”Petitions to Watch” list when they are ready for consideration by the Justices.  ”Notable Petitions” are those that Tom has identified as raising one or more questions that has a reasonable chance of being granted in an appropriate case.  We generally do not attempt to evaluate whether the case presents an appropriate vehicle to decide the question, which is a critical consideration in determining whether certiorari will be granted.

The newest notable petitions, along with the opinions below and any other briefs filed at the Court so far, follow the jump.

Title: Sherry v. Johnson
Docket: 09-1342
Issue: Whether the Michigan courts unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by rejecting the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because it did not affect the outcome.

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Title: Iron Thunderhorse v. Pierce
Docket: 09-1353
Issue: Whether the court of appeals misinterpreted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., to require only a minimal showing that a prison grooming rule which concededly imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise is the “least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.”

• Opinion below (5th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

[Note: This petition was distributed for the Justices' conference on Sept. 27, 2010.]

Title: City of Reno v. Conn
Docket: 09-1361
Issues: (1) Whether a city must train its law enforcement officers to diagnose and report detainees? symptoms of suicidal tendencies to avoid municipal liability under the Fourteenth Amendment?s Due Process Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) whether law enforcement officers must diagnose and report detainees? symptoms of suicidal tendencies, to avoid individual liability under the Fourteenth Amendment?s Due Process Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Amicus brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al.

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on July 08, 2010 (boomark / email).