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 Supreme Court quickly cleared two new lists from last week.The court Award certificate in FBI v. Fazaga, 20-828, Whether it involves Section 1806(f) of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, It replaces common law state secret privileges for people seeking to suppress the FISA evidence creation process that will be introduced against them.The courts will approve relatively few cases in the next term, but Two of them Regarding this privilege, both originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Petitioner is in National Male League v. Military Service System, 20-928Challenge the constitutionality of only male draft registration, and you will not be so lucky. The court refused to review without clear objections.Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an article Individual opinion Agree to deny the certificate, joined by judges Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. Also note that “[t]Since “the Supreme Court upheld the registration of men’s enlistment, the role of women in the army has changed dramatically. Rostock v. GoldbergThe consent letter explained that Congress was even considering ending these restrictions at the time, and concluded that “at least for now, the court’s long-standing respect for Congress in defense and military affairs reminds not to grant this issue while Congress is actively weighing this issue. Review.”

The court reopened only one case this week: Barbuena v. Katz, 20-1207. Barbuena Bring up one more involving The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996This limits the ability of federal judges to provide relief to prisoners seeking incidental review of their criminal convictions. As Sotomayor wrote when he was a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, AEDPA “Ensure that every prisoner has ample opportunity to seek collateral review. But the bill imposes stricter restrictions on “second or continuous” petitions.

The California prisoner Alexander Balbuena insisted that when the first habeas corpus procedure ends and subsequent documents are considered “second or consecutive”, there will be disagreements in the lower courts. Balbuena argued that in the two circuit courts, the court held that the first habeas corpus procedure had not been completed, and the district court’s refusal relief was still under appeal, so attempts to amend the petition were not subject to “second or consecutive” petitions. Limitations. Yes, the judge Sotomayor at the time wrote an opinion that adopted this position. The petition argued that the other five circuit courts regarded the district court’s rejection of the habeas corpus request as the “end point” of the first habeas corpus procedure, and therefore will modify any efforts to modify the basic petition when reviewing the habeas corpus. Petition for the “second or consecutive”. The refusal is pending on appeal.

In the case of Barbuena, the detective who interviewed Barbuena in the interrogation room told him that he had the right to obtain the help of a lawyer before the “interrogation” and was told that he “ha”[d] The right to hire a lawyer. Barbuena subsequently admitted his role in the murder. On a direct appeal and an incidental review through his first petition, the court rejected Barbuena’s argument that his confession was involuntary. Because of him His first application for habeas corpus was rejected. The appeal is pending in the 9th Circuit. Barbuena obtained permission to amend his petition in the District Court. He put forward a new argument: the detective violated Miranda v. Arizona Not telling him he has the right to get a lawyer in trial. Because the district court has already ruled on Balbuena’s first petition, the Ninth Circuit held that his new argument in the revised document is a prohibited “second or continuous” petition. Balbuena argued that other tournaments could allow him to make new arguments, and Balbuena asked the Supreme Court to weigh them.

That’s all for this week. Stay safe!

New re-listed

Barbuena v. Katz, 20-1207
problem: Seeking to amend the district court documents of the habeas corpus application pending appeal whether it constitutes a “second or consecutive” application The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

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 used excessive force when placing a man in handcuffs and fetters face down on the ground and pressing 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 has improperly overstepped Whether COA is worthy of the threshold investigation, and decides the merits 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)