Details on today’s Supreme Court orders
The Court granted cert. in nine cases today. Brief summaries as well as details on additional orders are below.
The issue in No. 12-515, Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, is whether federal law permits a state to sue an Indian tribe to try to stop operation of a casino that is outside the tribe’s reservation.
The issue in 12-820, Lozano v. Alvarez, relates to deadlines for filing a petition under the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; specifically whether the one-year filing period is tolled when the abducting parent has concealed the child’s whereabouts from the left-behind parent.
The issue in No. 12-99, United Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, is whether a federal statute that prohibits an employer from giving a union “any money or thing of value” prevents the employer from giving the union other forms of assistance (for example, the names and contact information of non-unionized employees whom the union wants to contact for union organizing purposes, or a promise to remain neutral to union organizing efforts).
No. 12-930, Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio, is an immigration case–it relates to whether people who are children when a visa petition is filed, but grow older and stop being children by the time the visa becomes available, should be treated as children or as adults for the purposes of being beneficiaries of sponsored immigrants.
The issue in 12-1182 EPA v. EME, and 12-1183 American Lung v. EME, is the validity of the EPA’s cross-state pollution rule. This is an important case regarding the enforcement of the Clean Air Act. The D.C. Circuit held that the rule was invalid, so the case is up on the Obama administration’s petition.
The issue in 12-1281, NLRB v. Noel Canning is the validity of the President’s recess appointment power.
No. 12-1168, McCullom v. Coakley is a case from Massachusetts regarding abortion buffer zones, and asks whether an older Court case regarding abortion buffer zones (Hill v. Colorado) should be overruled.
No. 12-1200, the Executive Benefits v. Arkinson, is a bankruptcy case involving the jurisdiction of the federal courts based on the “implied consent” of litigants.
No. 12-1208, UBS v. Union de Empleados, is about shareholder derivative class actions, it asks whether the facts that plaintiffs have alleged in a shareholder derivative complaint were sufficient to dismiss a pre-suit demand on the corporation’s board of directors.
In 12-651, Amy & Vicky v. U.S., the child pornography victims case, the Court did not act. So it very likely will be reconsidered at the end of this week.
The Court did not act on 12-1094, Cline v. Ok Coalition, on RU486. Presumably it will be reconsidered late this week.
In the CVSG cases, here are the issues:
In 12-786 Limelight v. Akamai, and 12-960, Akamai v. Limelight, the question relates to patent infringement; specifically, whether it’s possible to prove infringement of a method claim when one party doesn’t perform all the steps of the claim (and instead induces another party to perform one of the steps)
In 12-1078, Samantar v. Yousef, the issue is whether a violation of international law abrogates a foreign official’s common law immunity for official acts.
No comments:
Post a Comment