Issues

Charles Martin is serving life imprisonment for the robbery and first-degree murder of Charles Stapleton. After exhausting his direct appeals, Martin filed a petition for habeas corpus in California state court, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The California Supreme Court eventually dismissed the petition under the state’s “timeliness” rule, which bars claims filed after “substantial delay.” Martin then filed a habeas corpus claim in federal court on similar grounds. The federal district court found that the state timeliness grounds were “adequate” for dismissal of the federal case. Under the adequate state grounds doctrine, a federal court will not review the decision of a state court if the federal court’s decision would have no impact on the case. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the state had failed to prove that California’s timeliness rule was sufficiently clear and consistently applied so as to be an adequate state bar. Martin argues that the Ninth Circuit was correct in its ruling, while Petitioner James Walker counters that the rule is indeed consistently applied. If the Supreme Court finds the rule adequate, this will likely increase denials of federal habeas corpus petitions; if the rule is not adequate, however, California may be required to use a more precise standard in determining what constitutes an untimely petition.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Respondent Betty Dukes and other women have brought a Title VII employment discrimination case against Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class action comprised of all women employed at any Wal-Mart store since December 26, 1998 who may have been or will be subjected to Wal-Mart’s allegedly discriminatory practices and policies. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the class certification, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. Wal-Mart now appeals to the Supreme Court, arguing that the class certification does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Wal-Mart also claims that class certification was improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because the employees primarily seek monetary compensation in the form of back pay, and Rule 23(b)(2) does not authorize certification of claims seeking monetary relief. On the other hand, the employees assert that they meet the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) because all female employees face the same Wal-Mart policies and share the common issue of discriminatory treatment under those policies. The employees further argue that class actions certified under Rule 23(b)(2) are not precluded from seeking monetary relief, and deny that back pay is a form of monetary compensation. The Supreme Court’s decision will affect the evidence required to bring an employment discrimination class action suit, the relief available to plaintiffs in a class action, and employers’ willingness to settle to avoid liability in class actions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether a manufacturer may be held liable under maritime law for injuries caused by third-party products that were added to the manufacturer’s product. Air and Liquid Systems Corp. argues that a manufacturer has no duty to warn against the asbestos-related dangers of third-party products. Roberta G. Devries and Shirley McAfee, whose husbands died of asbestos-related illnesses, counter that imposing a duty to warn is reasonable because bare-metal manufacturers should reasonably foresee that their products will be used with asbestos-containing products. Because the injured parties were U.S. Navy sailors, this case also asks the Supreme Court to consider principles of maritime law. The outcome will determine the contours of recovery in the admiralty context.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to interpret the statutory construction of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and ultimately decide how easy it will be for the Government to begin deportation proceedings against criminal aliens. Section 1226(c)(1) provides for the mandatory detention of criminal aliens who commit certain offenses. Mony Preap, an alien with two drug convictions that triggered mandatory detention under § 1226(c), and two other similarly situated aliens contend that, under this statute, the Department of Homeland Security must immediately arrest criminal aliens upon their release from criminal custody in order for mandatory detention to apply. The Government counters that narrowly construing the statute, as Preap proposes, would contradict Congress’s intent to reduce the growing threat to public safety posed by dangerous criminal aliens and their high risk of flight. The outcome of this case has implications for the Government’s ability to detain aliens without a bond hearing under § 1226(c) following their release from criminal custody and affects the ease with which the Government can initiate deportation proceedings against aliens.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The 1995 amendment to the Kansas Motor Fuel Tax Act allowed the Kansas Department of Revenue to collect a tax on motor fuel distributed to Indian lands. The Prairie Band of the Potawatomi Nation sought to enjoin the State from collecting the tax, claiming that the tax was pre-empted by federal law and that it impermissibly infringed on the Potawatomi Nation's rights of self-government. As prescribed by White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, either claim can be resolved by an interest-balancing test that considers (1) whether the tax revenue derives from value generated on- or off-reservation, and (2) whether the taxpayer benefits from tribal or state services. The Court will determine whether states can impose a tax which indirectly, but almost certainly, affects enterprises that take place on Indian reservations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In 1994, respondent Cesar Sarausad was convicted of second degree murder in Washington State Court for his role as a driver in a gang-related shooting. At trial, the prosecution argued in its closing that Sarausad could be found guilty of murder under the Washington accomplice liability statute because, even though he only drove the car, if he was "in for a dime," he was "in for a dollar." After repeated requests for clarification on the accomplice liability rule, which the trial judge answered only by referring the jurors back to the Washington accomplice liability statute, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict. Sarausad was convicted; he argued unsuccessfully on direct appeal that the instruction relieved the state of its burden to prove each element of the offense charged. Sarausad eventually sought federal habeas corpus relief, which the Ninth Circuit granted. The State of Washington, seeking to reinstate Sarausad's conviction, petitioned for certiorari from the Supreme Court. In deciding this case, the Supreme Court may determine if a federal court is required to defer to state court determination of state law when interpreting the constitutionality of jury instructions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Daniel Schmidt, a former Wachovia customer, sued the bank in state court after the IRS determined that the investment strategy Wachovia had recommended was illegal. Wachovia, which is headquartered in Charlotte, NC, successfully sought to remove the case to federal court because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties. After an adverse decision on the merits, Wachovia appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rather than address the decision on the merits, however, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the case altogether. It determined that the federal system never had jurisdiction to hear the case because Wachovia had branches in South Carolina, and therefore there was no diversity of citizenship between the parties. Wachovia appealed to the Supreme Court because it hopes to keep the case from being retried in state court.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In 1995, Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. and Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. entered into a five-year franchise agreement authorizing Reeder as an official Volvo heavy truck dealer. Volvo manufacturers its heavy trucks only after a retail customer solicits bids from several Volvo dealers and accepts a bid. This sort of "competitive bidding" process is an industry-wide practice, and Volvo offers price concessions throughout the process. Reeder claims that Volvo discriminated against the dealership by offering it smaller price concessions. Reeder claims this not only resulted in a loss of business for Reeder, but also violated the Robinson Patman Act. A jury trial resulted in a victory for Reeder, and a divided Eigth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Reeder's claims. Volvo appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. In its decision, the Supreme Court will help define who receives protection under the Robinson-Patman Act, as well as the amount and kind of evidence a plaintiff will need to produce for this type of claim.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Congress passed the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (“section 922”), to prohibit domestic abusers from obtaining firearms. Section 922 covers individuals convicted for a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” which includes state misdemeanors that constitute “the use of physical force.” The Supreme Court will consider whether convictions under Maine’s domestic assault law satisfy this predicate offense requirement. Stephen Voisine was convicted under Maine’s domestic assault statute, which criminalizes “the intentional, knowing, or reckless causation of bodily injury or offensive physical contract to another person.” Voisine was then convicted under section 922. But Voisine asserts that common law battery requires a mens rea greater than recklessness and that the “use of physical force” implies intentional conduct. The United States argues that recklessness meets the standard for common law battery, and contends that section 922 would be pointless if it did not cover misdemeanors like Maine’s domestic assault statute. The Court’s decision will affect the ability of misdemeanants to possess firearms and the health and safety of domestic violence victims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2003, Virginia police stopped David Moore for driving on a suspended license. The officers then violated Virginia law by arresting Moore instead of issuing a summons. A follow-up search revealed cash and cocaine in Moore's pockets. Moore moved to suppress this evidence on grounds that the illegal arrest made the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Virginia responded that while Moore's arrest violated state law, the search was reasonable under the U.S. Constitution because it was incident to an arrest based on probable cause that he committed a crime. The trial court found the search constitutional and convicted Moore on drug charges. The Virginia Court of Appeals initially reversed but reinstated the conviction after hearing the case en banc. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the conviction, and Virginia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. This case could affect many state laws concerning civil liberties and the way in which police think about illegal arrests.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources