The Relist Watch column examines the Supreme Court’s petition to “relist” the certificate for the upcoming meeting.Provides a short description of relists here.

The Supreme Court continues to quickly turn around in the relisted cases, Grant review In four such cases on Friday.

The court has four petitions in criminal cases, asking whether doctors convicted of illegal dispensing of drugs should be allowed to let the jury consider whether they subjectively consider these prescriptions to be medically appropriate.As I kind of predicted last week When the last of the four petitions was relisted, the court finally approved the review of two of them to be debated together: Nguyen v. U.S., 20-1410, with Kahn v. United States, 21-5261(Two other cases that the court is considering will now await the outcome Ruan with Kahn Then deal with it as appropriate. )

I’m also right Egbert v. Bull, 21-147, Is “complete certificate bait”.Whether this case involves Bivens v. Six Unidentified Agents of the Federal Narcotics Administration It can be used to claim that the Border Patrol violated the innkeeper’s Fourth Amendment rights because he treated him roughly during the search and retaliated against his complaint by encouraging the IRS to investigate him.Even more surprisingly, the court approved Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita, Inc., 20-1641, Claiming that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th and 9th Circuits had disagreements on how to apply the anti-discrimination provisions of the Medicare Auxiliary Payer Act. All the others from last week are back for this Friday’s court meeting.

We have a new relisting case this week: Morgan v. Sundance, 21-328. in 2011 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, The Supreme Court held Federal Arbitration Law The court is required to “put the arbitration agreement on the same status as other contracts.”exist Concepcion, Claiming that California law treats arbitration contracts lower than other contracts.By contrast MorganThe plaintiff/petitioner claimed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit gave the arbitration clause an excessively partial treatment, making it more difficult to prove that the defendant waived the arbitration clause than it was to prove that it waived other clauses.Despite a reminiscent name Heartthrob in the late 1960s with Impossible exclusive festival tickets, Operated by the respondent Sundance, Inc. Taco Bell Franchise. Robin Morgan worked at the Taco Bell franchise under Sundance and filed a presumptive class action in federal court under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sundance filed a dismissal of the lawsuit and later responded to her complaint and put forward various arguments, but did not insist on arbitration. After mediation failed to reach a settlement, Sundance took action to force a separate arbitration of Morgan’s claim. The district court ruled that the Sundance Film Festival had waived its arbitration rights because it had not filed for arbitration in advance. However, on appeal, the 8th Circuit overturned the judgment on the grounds that it “did not show prejudice against Morgan.” In her petition, Morgan argued that the lower courts are divided on whether prejudice is a necessary condition to prove that one party has waived the argument, and in any case, prejudice is not a necessary factor for waiving other contract terms.

This is all the new relists. But I have an update on the relist last week, Volkswagen Group v. Hillsboro County Environmental Protection Commission, 20-994The case concerns whether the “Clean Air Act” takes precedence over state and local government supervision of automakers’ nationwide after-sales updates to vehicle emission systems. This Friday, the court will consider for the first time another petition from the public that raises the same issue. Volkswagen AG v. Volkswagen, Ohio, former rel.Jost, 21-312. (“Aktiengesellschaft” is German word”Eat sorrow Your enemy.”) As the authorization in the case involving prescribing doctors showed last Friday, the court sometimes waits for all the cases that raise questions to arrive at the meeting before taking action. Therefore, we may soon take action in some way .

That’s all for this week. We will come again next week. Stay safe!

New re-listed

Morgan v. Sundance, 21-328
problem: The supporter of the contract’s waiver of defense proves whether the specific requirements of arbitration for damage violated the Supreme Court’s AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion The lower court must “put the arbitration agreement on the same level as other contracts.”
(Re-listing after the meeting on November 5)

Return to relist

Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington, 19-333
problem: (1) Whether a state violated the First Amendment’s free exercise and freedom of speech by forcing floral designers to participate in and creating custom-made floral arrangements to celebrate same-sex weddings or based on hostility to her religious beliefs (2) Whether the free exercise clause prohibits religious hostility is applicable to the executive branch.
(January 10, 2020, January 17, 2020, January 24, 2020, February 21, 2020, June 24, 2021, review the petition after the meeting; review the petition after September 27, 2021 , 8th, October 15th, October 29th and November 5th meetings)

Naum v. United States, 20-1480
problem: Whether element 21 USC § 841(a)(l) As defined U.S. v. Moore, Requiring the government to prove that the illegal distribution of controlled substances “outside the usual professional practice process” and “outside of the legal medical purpose” can be applied in the separation, allowing the government to only prove that the prescription was prescribed “in the usual professional practice “Outside the process” or “outside the scope of professional practice” simply because of violation of professional standards, without considering the medical legality of the drug.
(Re-listed after September 27, October 8, October 15 and October 29 meetings; now Ruan with sweat)

Sofa v. America, 20-7934
problem: (1) Whether the court of first instance mistakenly mixed the effective defense of the crime into one 21 USC § 841(a)(2) Whether the court of first instance made a mistake by failing to explain or fully define “good faith” in its instructions to the jury in the case of controlled substances law involving doctors.
(Re-listed after September 27, October 8, October 15 and October 29 meetings; now Ruan with sweat)

Volkswagen Group v. Hillsboro County Environmental Protection Commission, 20-994
problem: whether Clean air method Take the lead in state and local government supervision of manufacturers’ after-sales, nationwide vehicle emission system updates. CVSG: 9/27/2021
(Re-listing after the meeting on October 29)

New York City v. Frost, 20-1788
problem: Whether, where Question 1983 The plaintiff claimed that his pre-trial detention was affected by forged evidence and that the existence of possible causes independent of the questioned evidence failed his Fourth Amendment claim. He can still obtain justification based on the claim to use the same questioned evidence The procedure advocates the same pretrial detention.
(Re-listed after the October 29th meeting; now held)

Knight v. Pennsylvania, 20-7805
problem: Can a state require a defendant to provide an IQ score of 75 or less “recorded before the age of 18” in order to treat his intellectual disability claim as the basis for canceling his death penalty, when this requirement is in line with the clinical diagnostic criteria and violates multiple decisions, Among them, the Supreme Court has provided relief to petitioners who lack any such documents.
(Re-listing after the October 29th and November 5th meetings)

Holcomb v. Florida, 21-53
problem: (1) When lawyers are engaged in “joint and dual” representation—that is, when they represent both the defendant and the main witness of the prosecution during the trial, whether the criminal defendant has established an “actual” conflict of interest that adversely affects the attorney’s representation; (2) When the prosecutor (not the defense attorney) notifies the trial judge at the beginning of the trial of the defense lawyer’s conflict of interest, whether the “presumptive bias” conflict of interest criterion applies—the conflict described by the prosecutor as “non-abandonable”—the judge thereafter Failed to investigate the nature and scope of the conflict.
(Re-listing after the October 29th and November 5th meetings)

New Life Trustee of the Church of Christ v. City of Fredericksburg, 21-164
problem: (1) Whether the civil authorities violated the First Amendment in their own interpretation of church doctrines to reject the church’s decision that a particular official is a pastor, and if so, whether summary revocation is appropriate; (2) As an alternative, the highest Should the court be based on Fulton v Philadelphia, Because the state of Virginia established a “personal exemption system” for its property tax law, and the city “‘may not refuse to extend the system [exemption] System to [the Church] There is no compelling reason. ‘”
(Rescheduled before the October 8th and October 15th meetings; re-listed after the October 29th and November 5th meetings)


Source link