Today’s (Apparent) Supreme Court Relisted Cases

I’m confident that this is only a partial list of cases the Court has relisted.  If you know of others, I’m all ears. 

Four cases on their first relist:

Wong v. Smith, 09-1031, CA9. The Court called for the record on 9/28. The case involves whether 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and the Supreme Court’s “clearly established law” permit federal habeas corpus relief on a claim that a state judge unconstitutionally “coerces” jurors to return a guilty verdict by identifying specific evidence in the case as important and instructing them to consider it.

Alderman v. United States, 09-1555, CA9, involves the constitutionality of 18 USC § 931. (Disclosure: This petition was filed by the UVA School of Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, with which I’m affiliated.)

Stroud v. Blount, 09-1572, Ill. App., involves the validity of a punitive damages award under BMW v. Gore, and whether the lower court erred in rejecting the applicability of Noerr-Pennington doctrine (which, as an aside, is a great thing to cite when you need to induce puzzled looks).

Dismuke v. United States, 10-109, CA7, involving whether a conviction for attempting to flee or elude a police officer in a motor vehicle under only the second prong of such a fleeing statute constitute a “violent felony” under the residual clause of section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Then we have four cases that appear to be on their third relist. As a statistical matter, these seem likely to produce dissents from denial or possibly a summary reversal.

Beer v. United States, 09-1395, CAFed. Relisted 9/27, 10/8, apparently 10/15. Whether the Compensation Clause of Article III prevents Congress from withholding the future judicial salary adjustments established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.

Williams v. Hobbs, 09-10382, CA8, relisted 9/27, 10/8, 10/15. Looks like an ineffective-assistance claim in a capital case. (Thanks to commenter Scott Braden for contributing this one.)

Allen v. Lawhorn, 10-24, CA11, Relisted 9/27, 10/8, apparently 10/15. Whether, under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1), a state court’s determination that trial counsel’s waiver of a penalty-phase closing argument did not prejudice the defendant was “contrary to” clearly established precedent of this Court.

Wilson v. Corcoran, 10-91, CA7, relisted 9/27, 10/8, apparently 10/15; the court called for the record on 10/1. 1. Does a state capital defendant have a constitutional right to a sentencing decision informed in no way by facts that are neither elements of a crime of which he stands convicted or aggravating circumstances authorized by statute? 2. If so, may a federal court grant habeas relief based on its own finding that a state trial court improperly considered non-statutory aggravators when imposing a sentence of death, contrary to the determination of the state supreme court on that issue?

UPDATE: Cert was denied on Wong v. Smith and Stroud v. Blount on November 1; the former drew this dissent.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes