Re-listing the watch

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 world is in balance this week as the Supreme Court cleared two relisted cases even though it Accepted two new relists. Good news for petitioners Unicolors, Inc. v H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP, 20-915, As a court Agree to the decision Only knowing whether falsehood is sufficient to prove that the copyright is invalid, or whether the party questioning the copyright must also prove that there is fraud or a major error.

For petitioner Kenneth Lamont Sanders, the news is a bit complicated Sanders v. United States, 20-6400On the bright side, the court approved his application, revoked the verdict dismissing his challenge to the police entering his home without a license, and sent his case back to the Court of Appeal, according to the court’s recent Canilla v. Strom. Canilla The belief that non-investigative interests in “community care” does not allow the police to enter Sanders’s home in response to reports of family disputes without a permit to enter the house, which puts Sanders in a difficult position.But on the negative side, the court’s influence Median vote, Judge Brett Kavanaugh Write separately Reiterate that he is in his Canilla Agree: shelving the “wrong label now” of “community care”, the Supreme Court has long “allowed[ed] Unauthorized entry into the house under certain circumstances, such as when the police have an objective and reasonable basis to believe that the occupant is in danger.

we Preview The most juicy new list this week, National Male League v. Military Service System, 20-928, A few weeks ago. The case was originally scheduled for consideration at a meeting on May 20, but a few days ago, the court rescheduled the case for May 27, which delayed the judges’ first opportunity to discuss the case. The “rearrangement” process shows that at least one judge is watching the case closely. National Men’s League Raised the question of whether the government can legally restrict conscription registration to men. Rostock v. Goldberg Insist on allowing only men to participate in the enlistment registration, because women were explicitly forbidden to play combat roles in the armed forces at that time. The Department of Defense has since lifted the ban, so the National Men’s League, a male rights organization supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, believes that Rostek It should be rejected, and the requirement that men rather than women participate in military service registration violates the Fifth Amendment’s right to equal protection. The chief legal counsel of the challenger is mainly female.

The government argues that it is too early to reconsider Rostek Now because Congress is actively considering revising the male-only registration. It also believes that this case is a bad tactic because the challenger lacks status.

This brings us to our second new list.in FBI v. Fazaga, 20-828, The respondent Yassir Fazaga and two other Muslim men from Southern California filed a constitutional lawsuit accusing the FBI of using confidential informants to secretly collect information about Muslims in their communities based solely on their religious beliefs. The district court rejected the claim based on state secret privileges. According to common law privileges, the government can refuse to provide relevant evidence if a case is disclosed that would harm national security. The claim of privilege needs to be dismissed in the judgment of the litigation case. Even if no evidence of privilege is introduced, it will bring an unacceptable risk of leaking state secrets.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit dismissed and sent back further litigation, concluding that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 It replaces the privilege of state secrets, and authorizes the district court to resolve cases of lawsuits that question the legitimacy of government surveillance in a non-public and unilateral manner by considering privileged evidence. The relevant provisions, Section 1806(f) The FISA regulations set procedures for people seeking to suppress FISA evidence against them. When the Ninth Circuit failed to review the case in its entirety, Judge Patrick Bumatai, along with eight other judges, filed an objection, arguing that the decision was incorrect and endangered national security. The government’s petition also argued that the decision is harmful to national security.

We will better understand whether the court agrees on Monday.If the court approves the review, it will be The second state secret case They are all from the 9th Tour.

That’s all for this week. be careful!

New shelf

FBI v. Fazaga, 20-828
problem: Whatever Section 1806(f) of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 It replaces the privilege of state secrets, and authorizes the district court to resolve cases of lawsuits that question the legitimacy of government surveillance in a non-public and unilateral manner by considering privileged evidence.
(Re-listing after the meeting on May 27)

National Male League v. Military Service System, 20-928
problem: Given that the Ministry of National Defense has lifted the ban on women’s participation in war, should the Supreme Court reject it? Rostock v. Goldberg, Because women at the time were explicitly prohibited from serving in combat roles, they supported a male-only draft, and believed that the federal government required men, not women, to register for military service, according to authorization 50 USC § 3802(a), Violates the equal protection right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
(Re-listing after the meeting on May 27)

Return to relist

Chipotle Mexican Grill v. Scott, 20-257
problem: When assessing whether employees are in a “similar situation” in the collective action clause of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the district court can consider factors other than the existence of a single major legal issue or facts shared by a group of employees.
(Re-listing after the meeting 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]

Lombardo v. St. Louis, Missouri, 20-391
problem: Can a reasonable jury determine that the police officer used excessive force when he placed a man in handcuffs and fetters face down on the ground and pressed him on his back until he suffocated.
(December 4, December 11, January 8, January 15, January 22, February 19, February 26, March 5, March 19, March 26 , April 1, April 16, April 23 before the meeting rescheduled; April 30, May 13, May 20, and May 27 after the meeting to re-list)

Dunn v. Reeves, 20-1084
problem: Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Violated 28 USC § 2254(d) Violated by easily attributing the error to the state court Woodford v. Visioti.
(Re-listing after the May 20th and May 27th meetings)

Hernandez v Peery, 20-6199
problem: (1) If the state courts and state judges disagree on the substance of the constitutional issues held by the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, several district courts, and three federal judges, should they issue a Certificate of Appeal (“COA”) on a regular basis.This court, or whether the court should reject the COA, despite the following disputes between the 9th Circuit Court and the District Court deems reasonable state jurists; (2) As a threshold issue, whether the petitioner shows that reasonable jurists can debate his petition Whether the book should be resolved in a different way, because the opinion issued by the Supreme Court of California has since diverged with each state and lower federal courts Perry v. RickThey believe that the order of the court of first instance violated the “right of the defendant to have unrestricted access to lawyers to advise on various trial-related matters” as a structural error and reversible in itself; (3) Whether the Ninth Circuit improperly overstepped Whether the COA is worth the threshold investigation, and decides the merits of the case without jurisdiction, which violates the court’s Buck v DavisDifferent state court judges reached the opposite conclusions about the petitioner’s constitutional claim, and all lower federal and state court authorities disagree with the California Supreme Court’s view of this constitutional claim.
(Re-listing after the May 20th and May 27th meetings)