Watch crawl task – SCOTUSblog


496
496 points

Posted Thursday, October 29, 2020 1:39 pm Posted by John Ellwood

John Ellwood reviews the rosters on Monday.

It Good to be the government. This is the lesson learned from last week’s orders, when the Supreme Court decided to review four cases, and the attorney general wasThe upper part” in a three. Other re-recorded petitions were not so fortunate. The court rejected the testimony in two parts, although the petitioners in both received consolation awards: Judge Neil Görüç, joined by Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Cagan, presented a decision respecting the refusal (complete with Photo!) In the The fourth amendment is the curtilage conditionJudge Clarence Thomas lodged an objection to the denial in Oklahoma Tax Case.

Thankfully it’s a light rereading week. There is only one new listing: Woodard v. The United States, 20-5758. Case 18 includes USC § 924 (c), which imposes a mandatory minimum penalty for the use of a firearm during and in relation to a violent or drug-trafficking crime. At the time of Damon Woodard’s conviction, the law imposed a mandatory 5-year sentence for the first offense; A mandatory sentence for 20 consecutive years. “[i]N case [a] The second or subsequent conviction. ” A deal against the United States, The Supreme Court held that if a person is charged with two or more of these crimes in the same indictment, the second, third or fourth crime is a “second or subsequent conviction,” and each of them will add an additional consecutive sentence for at least 20 years. The mandatory minimum clauses “stack” was quickly added, resulting in some formidable sentences.

In 2018, Congress amended Section 924 (c) as part of the First Step Act in what it described as “clarification,” replacing the language for “second or subsequent condemnation” with improving any “violation of this subsection that occurs after pre-conviction under this subsection has become final.” Woodard asks the court to “reconsider and retract.” Deal. “It is a positive sign to Woodard that the case has been re-examined by the court; the relists are very positively associated with granting the review. But it is a very bad sign that the government waived its right to respond and the court did not request a response; the court did not agree without demanding a response in recent memory. This leads me to a conclusion. That this may be a material “opposition from denial”.

Usually, that will be it. But since people read this column to get a preview of the grants and it’s a light week, I thought it (at risk Task crawlingI would like to look at some of the unrecorded cases that seem to me to be a potential grant.

Carr versus Saul, 19-1442And and Davis in. Saul, 20-105Both involve an issue of particular interest given the Court’s recent interest in Separation From Powers: Whether the plaintiff seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Law loses the appointment clause to challenge the appointment of the administrative law judge who oversees his case by failing to file this appeal during the administrative procedures. The Government Acknowledges There is a circulating conflict on this issue and he says that both cases are “appropriate means” to resolve the conflict. But “[b]ecause the petition … at Carr It was submitted first, “says the government,” The court may wish to approve and comment on this petition [Davis] Pending adjudication. ”We will soon find out what the court thinks.

That’s all for now. Stay Safe!

New rests

Woodard v. The United States, 20-5758
the case: Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider and retract its decision on A deal against the United States, Which allows first-time “accumulation” of the mandatory minimum sentences for first-time offenders under 18 USC § 924 (c) (1) (c) for offenses in a single indictment, when subsequent Congressional amendments supersede Deal He explained that the real intention of the statute is to punish the recidivism.
(Reinserted after October 16 conference)

Resets return

National Football League vs Ninth Inning, Inc., 1098-19
Issues: (1) Whether agreement between members of a joint venture about how best to distribute the common core product of the enterprise can be found guilty under the Sherman Act without requiring the plaintiff to prove that the defendants harmed competition in the properly defined antitrust market; And (2) whether, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling on Illinois Brick Company V. Illinois, Antitrust compensation claims can be filed by indirect buyers who do not claim to have paid a price set by the alleged conspirators.
(Reinserted after the September 29, October 9, and October 16 conferences)

McKesson vs. Doe, 19-1108
the case: Whether the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. The prohibition of negligence in state law makes the leader of a protest demonstration personally liable for damage caused by injuries sustained by a violent act of an unknown person there, when it is indisputable that the leader did not intend, authorize, direct or endorse the perpetrator’s act, participate in it, or incite violence from what type.
(Reinserted after the September 29, October 9, and October 16 conferences)

Taylor vs Riojas, 12-19-19
Issues: (1) Whether, when the unconstitutionality of the conduct of government officials is apparent, is sufficient to make the violation apparent, as recognized by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits in similar cases, or whether it must also be a directly binding precedent on the point, Represent the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held below; (2) Whether government officials deserve qualified immunity as long as there is no precedent that recognizes the unconstitutionality of a similar factual pattern, as recognized by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, or whether the previous precedent can clearly demonstrate a constitutional breach despite some factual differences The U.S. Courts of Appeals were also held for the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits; And (3) whether the judge created the doctrine of conditional immunity, which cannot be justified by reference to the text of 42 USC § 1983 Or its common law background, which has proven not to serve its policy objectives, should be narrowed or eliminated.
(Reinserted after the September 29, October 9, and October 16 conferences)

Shane vs. Cair, 19-1302
the case: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit breached 28 USC § 2254Preferential criterion, it used a flawed methodology that was repeatedly condemned by the Supreme Court, when it granted habeas corpus based on a new finding of violation of the Sixth Amendment.
(Re-registration was made after the September 29, October 9, and October 16 conferences; record requested prior to the October 15 conference)

Daily vs. Florida, 19-7309
the case: Whether the Florida Supreme Court analysis Chambers against MississippiWith a factor-based approach that some courts have adopted but rejected by most others, it was unconstitutional.
(Reinserted after the September 29, October 9, and October 16 conferences)

Published in National Football League vs Ninth Inning Inc., McKesson vs. Doe, Shane vs. Cair, Taylor vs Riojas, Daily vs. Florida, Carr versus Saul, Davis in. Saul, Woodard v. The United States, Featured, Cases in the pipeline

Recommended quote:
John Ellwood
Watch a creep task,
Scotus Blog (October 29, 2020, 1:39 pm), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/mission-creep-watch-2/


Like it? Share with your friends!

496
496 points
admin

0 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *