Arbitration (again), habeas corpus (again) and excessive police (again)

Watch again

The “Relisting Surveillance” column will review the petition that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming meeting.A short description about the relisting Here.

The Supreme Court has two weeks between considering which cases to review, which is not surprising, which means that the justices have a lot of petitions at the Thursday meeting: according to my estimate, there are 249. They will consider three of these petitions for the second time because the court relisted them after discussing them at the April 30 meeting. They involve three issues that the court has repeatedly considered in recent years: arbitration, habeas corpus and excessive police force.Now, please forgive me, because I have to abbreviate a bit this week because press of business.

Badgerow v. Walters, 20-1143It involves a very specific arbitration law Wadden v. Discover the bankThe Supreme Court ruled that when reviewing a petition for compulsory arbitration under Article 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, the Federal Court may “review” the petition to determine whether the parties Potential dispute There was a jurisdiction over federal issues. Badgerow It involves a question of whether the same “perspective” analysis applies to motions to confirm or revoke an arbitration award according to Articles 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Petitioner Denise Badgerow (Denise Badgerow) Think the circuit is separate Four to two on this issue. Interviewee Greg Walters (Greg Walters) counter It goes without saying that the case involved federal issues, and another case was involved before the same presiding judge was confirmed, which made the case a bad tactic because the legal rules in question are unlikely to affect the outcome. Next Monday, we will have a better idea whether the court agrees.

The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act provides strict regulations on the ability of federal courts to grant relief to state prisoners seeking relief. Among other things, AEDPA prohibits federal courts from reviewing habeas corpus convictions. If the prisoner or his attorney fails to diligently develop the factual basis of the claim in the state court, the federal court shall not consider evidence other than recorded in the state court. Except for the applicable Shinn v Ramirez, 20-1009The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that when the court defended a breach of the claim procedure because the breach was caused by the negligence of the convicting lawyer, the AEDPA evidence development standard does not apply to the federal court’s review of the claim. . The decision of the Ninth Circuit provided relief to death row inmates David Martinez and Barry Jones. When the Ninth Circuit refused to reopen the case, Eight judges dissenting, Stating that the expert group’s decision “ignored[s] Control the Supreme Court’s precedent by establishing new judge exceptions through restrictions imposed on judges [AEDPA] The use of new evidence in habeas corpus litigation. The state of Arizona is now seeking review by the Supreme Court. Martinez and Jones argued that the case was Poor vehicle.Because the Supreme Court in recent months to sum up Overturned In the habeas corpus case (including another case in the Ninth Circuit) two appeals court rulings, this petition undoubtedly attracted the attention of the court.

That brings us to Lombardo v. St. Louis, Missouri, 20-391. The case involved an allegation of excessive police force made by Nicholas Gilbert’s parents, who died in police custody. Jody Lombardo and Bryan Gilbert argued that a reasonable jury might find that when an officer kneeling on Nicholas Gilbert put him in handcuffs and handcuffs, Put him face down on the ground and press on his back, until the force is too strong. He was suffocated. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that because Gilbert’s actions can be legally interpreted as “resistance”, the officers’ actions were not excessive force. This case has been lingering on the file for several months. It was originally scheduled to be deliberated at each court meeting from early December to late April, and it was rescheduled 13 times at the last minute, so the case was not really considered until the April 30 meeting.Although it is difficult to predict what will happen, as experience, repeat rearrange Yes often A kind prelude The judges put forward different opinions and opposed the court’s refusal to review. We will see the insights from Monday’s order list.

That’s all for this week. Stay safe!

New relist

Lombardo v. St. Louis, Missouri, 20-391
problem: Can a reasonable jury find out that the police officer put the man in handcuffs and shackles face down on the ground and pressed him on his back until he suffocated and used excessive force.
(Rescheduled on December 4, December 11, January 8, January 15, January 22, February 19, February 26, March 5, March 19, March 26, April 1, before the meeting on April 1 and April 23; re-listing after the meeting on April 30)

Shinn v Ramirez, 20-1009
problem: Is the Supreme Court declaring the application of fairness rules Martinez v Ryan Present Anti-terrorism and effective death penalty lawThis allows the Federal Court to disregard evidence outside of the state court records when the prisoner or his attorney fails to diligently develop the factual basis of the claim in the state court, and when reviewing the case for personal relief, it does not apply to the case of the federal court. Review habeas corpus claims.
(Relisted after the meeting on April 30)

Badgerow v. Walters, 20-1143
problem: Does the Federal Court have subject jurisdiction to confirm or revoke the basis Section 9 with 10 The only basis for jurisdiction is that when the fundamental dispute involves federal issues, it shall comply with the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act.
(Relisted after the meeting on April 30)

Back to list

Chipotle Mexican Grill v Scott, 20-257
problem: In accordance with the class action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, when assessing whether employees are “in a similar position,” whether the district court will consider a single major legal issue or factors other than facts shared by the employee group.
(Re-listing after the meetings on December 4, December 11, January 8, January 15 and January 22) [NB: the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle and the court now appears to be holding the case]

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 19-1392
problem: (1) Whether all bans on abortion during their lifetime violate the Constitution; (2) Whether the validity of the pre-survival laws that protect women’s health, the dignity of adult children, and the integrity of the medical profession and society should be analyzed based on the following content. Family Planning v. Casey“Excessive burden” standards or Holistic Women’s Health v. HelerstedtThe balance of benefits and burdens; (3) Whether the abortion provider has third-party qualifications to invalidate the law that protects women’s health from the hazards of post-abortion.
(Reschedule before the meetings on October 9, October 16, October 30, November 6, November 13, November 20, December 4, and December 11; in January 8th, January 15th, and re-listing after January 15. 22. February 19th, February 26th, March 5th, March 19th, March 26th, April 1st, April 16th, April 23rd and April 30th meetings)

Harris v. Maryland, 20-101
problem: When the delay before prosecution causes actual damage to the defendant’s ability to defend itself, does the due process clause require the defendant to prove that the delay was caused by improper procuratorial motives, or whether the court should balance the specific prejudice against the defendant due to the special reasons (or lack of the reason).
(On January 8, January 15, January 22, February 19, February 26, March 5, March 19, March 26, April 1, April 16 Day, April 23 and April 30 after the meeting)

Johnson v Precythe, 20-287
problem: (1) Whether Bucklew v Precythe A clear rule has been established, that is, the state can reject the claim of the Eighth Amendment’s enforcement method by providing a reason for rejecting the plaintiff’s alternative alternative enforcement method, and the reason is legal in the summary, regardless of whether the plaintiff reasonably claims The reasons provided by the state based on the facts of the case were illegal or insufficient; (2) Or, after the Supreme Court made the following ruling, whether the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed that the Eighth Circuit Court refused to approve Ernest Johnson (Ernest Johnson) buckle Issued in order to amend his complaint and to propose a voucher summary offset of the previously used alternative execution method.
(On January 8, January 15, January 22, February 19, February 26, March 5, March 19, and April 30 meetings (re-listed after supplementary explanation) )

Woodd v. United States, 20-6387
problem: As many courts have said, after the long and obvious stereotyped delay in filing criminal charges, if the prosecution cannot provide tactical advantages or harassment, and whether the prosecution cannot provide an explanation for the delay, whether the prosecution is allowed to proceed? Contrary to due process. It is sufficient to prove the degree of prejudice of the defendant.
(Relisted after the meetings on March 19, March 26, April 1, April 16, April 23, and April 30)

Allen v. Wells Fargo & Co., 20-866
problem: (1) Is it based on The 53rd Bureau of the Company v. Dudenhoeffer (Dudenhoeffer), As the internal information has not been publicly disclosed, the trustee of the employee stock ownership fund can effectively exempt from prudential responsibility; and (2) Whether DudenhoferThe framework is not limited to claims based on prudence, but also applies to claims of loyalty obligations against ESOP trustees.
(Relisted after meetings on April 1, April 16 and April 23)

Ericsson v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Co., Ltd., 20-1130
problem: (1) Although there is a general rule that the motion to reject summary judgment before trial cannot be appealed for review, whether there are exceptions to the decision of summary judgment only for “legal issues”; (2) Although one of the parties has not based on the following The reason is to seek a judgment in law, but whether the order to dismiss summary judgment can be reviewed after the trial: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50.
(Relisted after the meeting on April 23 and April 30)

Source link