Billboard tax, mailbox rules and clearing jurisdiction


Petition this week

This week, we focused on the certificate petition asking the Supreme Court to consider how the First Amendment restricts taxation of billboard owners, whether the “mailbox rule” applies to prisoners represented by lawyers, and the jurisdiction of the district courts on the following matters Book deletion motion.

In November, the court will hear the debate City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising Bureau, Texas, This is a challenge to the First Amendment to the Austin Regulations, which prohibits certain digital billboards, but allows other digital billboards, depending on the location of the billboard. A new petition requires the court to present another challenge to city policies that involve the differentiated treatment of signs.

The City of Baltimore levies taxes on owners of displays that promote services in different locations, which means many billboards instead of other types of signs. One of the country’s largest billboard advertising companies questioned the tax under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court of Maryland adopted loose standards and maintained that taxes were reasonably related to the city’s legitimate interest in increasing public revenue. In his petition, the billboard owner of one of the four such companies in Baltimore argued that higher standards should apply.The company also argued that Baltimore’s distinction between internal and external signs is more Austin. The situation is Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. Raymond.

According to the mailbox rules, if a prisoner’s file is mailed before the deadline, even if it arrives late to the court, it is timely.exist Cretac v. Call, Blake Cretacci argued that there was a circuit disagreement as to whether the rule applies to prisoners represented by lawyers. Cretacci, a pre-trial detainee, submitted a civil complaint to the prisoner’s mail system before the legal deadline for his claim, but it was too late to reach the district court. Although the lawyer helped Cretacci prepare the complaint, Cretacci submitted a “pro se” (representing oneself) because the lawyer was not a member of the relevant lawyer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the benefits of Cretacci’s mailbox rules on the grounds that he was adequately represented by attorneys. Cretacci asked the judge to review and revoke this holding.

Valueland Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States Involving the jurisdiction of federal criminal cases. In 2013, the federal government sued Ron Benit and Valueland Auto Sales, accusing them of depositing cash in the bank to avoid submitting the required reports, and confiscated their funds of more than $70,000. The government later dismissed all allegations and returned all funds. Benit and Valueland then began to delete their indictment records. However, the District Court found that it did not have any jurisdiction over the deletion motion because the charges had been dropped and the Sixth Circuit confirmed the ruling. Benit and Valueland believe that there is a circuit split on this important and recurring issue and request the Supreme Court to revoke the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

These and others Petition this week as follows:

Muhammad v. Wick
21-187
problem: Whether it is possible to provide federal officials with constitutional remedies for individual cases of excessive law enforcement violations of the Fourth Amendment.

Valueland Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States
21-211
problem: When the district court dismissed all criminal charges against the defendant, does that court have jurisdiction over the motions held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Tenth, and DC Circuit to delete records related to these charges, or whether it is the same as the U.S. First As determined by the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eleventh circuit courts of appeals, the district courts have no jurisdiction over such motions.

Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. Raymond
21-219
problem?According to the First Amendment, whether the tax on external billboards is subject to strict scrutiny.

Cretac v. Call
21-221
problem: If a prisoner who submits documents through the prison mail system has a lawyer, will he lose the benefits of the mailbox rule?



Source link