Federal Judiciary

Today’s Orders

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

The Court has granted certiorari in four cases today: Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, et al. (08-861) Black, et al.  v. United States (08-876);  Wood v. Allen (08-9156) [limited to questions 1 and 2]; and Beard v. Kindler (08-992). The Court has invited the views of the Solicitor General in Lewis, et al. v. City of Chicago (08-974). Justice Alito filed two dissents from the summary dispositions of Grooms v. United States (07-9086) and Megginson v. United States (07-6309), vacated and remanded in light of the Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant.

The order list is available here. Available filings in these cases are below.

Docket: 08-861
Title: Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, et al.
Issue: Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is consistent with separation-of-powers principles - as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board  is overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is in turn overseen by the President - or contrary to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution,  as the PCAOB members are appointed by the SEC.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition for respondents Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
• Brief in opposition for the United States
• Petitioner?s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation (in support of petitioners)
• Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation (in support of petitioners)
• Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (in support of petitioners)

Docket: 08-974
Title: Lewis, et al. v. City of Chicago
Issue: Where an employer adopts an employment practice that discriminates against African Americans in violation of Title VII?s disparate impact provision, must a plaintiff file an EEOC charge within 300 days after the announcement of the practice, or may a plaintiff file a charge within 300 days after the employer?s use of the discriminatory practice?

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

Docket: 08-876
Title: Black, et al.  v. United States
Issue: Whether the ?honest services? clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants ?reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm,? and if the defendants? reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government?s request for a special verdict.

• Opinion below (7th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

Docket: 08-992
Title: Beard v. Kindler
Issue:  Is a state procedural rule automatically ?inadequate? under the adequate-state-grounds doctrine - and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas corpus review - because the state rule is discretionary rather than mandatory?

• Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on May 18, 2009 (boomark / email).