Petition of the week

This week, we focused on the certification petition that requires the Supreme Court to consider the scope of the First Amendment, in particular, whether the law prohibiting secret recordings is too broad, and whether a state may require individuals to carry labels labeled “sex offenders.” ID card. “Next, we discussed the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act and filed two petitions, arguing that California’s efforts to restrict arbitration agreements undermined federal law.

There are two petitions asking the justices to deal with the novel First Amendment issue. Veritas Action Foundation v. Rollins Challenge one Massachusetts law Regardless of the motive, secretly recording the speech of anyone other than law enforcement officials is a felony. In terms of its widest application, this can include speeches at public events, protests or public forums. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected this challenge on grounds of maturity, ruling that the “plan” of secret recording alone was not enough to constitute a real and specific dispute. If the justice approves the petition, it will be the first time the Supreme Court has resolved the impact of secret recordings on the First Amendment.

The next free speech challenge involves the restrictions imposed by the First Amendment on the ban on forced speech.in Louisiana v. HillThe Louisiana Supreme Court confirmed a district court ruling that overturned two state regulations-one requiring sex offenders to obtain a special ID card (with the words “SEX OFFENDER” in all capital letters), The other prohibits the modification of such identification documents. The District Court found that these two regulations violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, and explained that the designation of sex offenders “is not a minimally restrictive way to promote the state’s legal rights to law enforcement agencies.” Louisiana argued that the decision contradicted the Supreme Court’s previous decision on forced speech and government speech and threatened the state’s ability to comply with the Supreme Court. Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

Two more petitions asked the court to weigh the arbitration issues. HRB Tax Group, Inc. v. Snarr It is a class action lawsuit filed in California against H&R Block and its subsidiaries. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied California law (as stated in the California Supreme Court ruling) and concluded that a provision in the pre-dispute arbitration agreement for personalized procedures waived the right to “public injunctive relief” , This is the opposite. California’s public policy cannot be implemented as a result. The two subsidiaries of H&R Block argued that the Federal Arbitration Act takes precedence over state laws and instructed the court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms. The company said that if the plaintiff could include a public injunction in every consumer case that the parties agreed to arbitrate, the FAA would be harmed.

The second FAA petition also came from California.in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v Moriana, A former employee of a cruise company sued the company under a lawsuit in California General Law of Private ProsecutorsThis allows workers to obtain civil compensation on behalf of themselves, other employees and the state. The company invoked a clause in the parties’ arbitration agreement and waived the right to file PAGA claims in an attempt to force arbitration. A state court in California ruled that this exemption violated California’s public policy and could not be enforced. It is argued that this ruling directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling. AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion with Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, The cruise company asked the judge to review.

These and others Petition of the week as follows:

Rivas-Villegas v Cortes Luna
20-1539
problem: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deviated from the Supreme Court’s ruling in the following areas: Graham v Conner with Plumhoff v. Rickard On the basis that it did not violate the provisions of the Constitution, it refused to grant Daniel Rivas Villegas full immunity. It concluded that the suspect was stepped on with his feet and his knees were briefly placed on the handcuffs when he was handcuffed. The back of the prone armed criminal suspect may constitute excessive force; (2) Whether the Ninth Circuit violated the Supreme Court’s Kisella v. Hughes In many other cases, although the two judges considered the use of force to be reasonable, they did not pass the grant of appropriate immunity, despite the lack of clear laws, and imposed it in a situation very similar to the situation faced by Rivas-Villegas. Responsibility.

Pivotal Software, Inc. v. Tran
20-1541
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to SCOTUSblog in various capacities, is counsel to the respondents in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.]
problem: Whether Private Securities Litigation Reform ActThe discovery retention provisions apply to Securities Act of 1933 Hearing in state courts or federal courts, or private litigation only in federal courts.

HRB Tax Group, Inc. v. Snarr
20-1570
problem: The Federal Arbitration Act vetoed whether California’s public policy rules refused to enforce agreements for individual arbitrations when the plaintiff sought a public injunction.

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v Moriana
20-1573
problem: Does the Federal Arbitration Act require the implementation of bilateral arbitration agreements, provided that employees cannot file representative actions, including California Private Attorney General Law.

Louisiana v. Hill
20-1587
problem: (1) Whether a country can require convicted sex offenders to obtain and carry a national identification with the words “sex offender” without ostensibly violating the “First Amendment” prohibition on compulsory speech; (2) Whether the convicted sex offender has the first amendment right to be prosecuted for fraudulently changing the state ID card after failing to comply with the statutory requirements of the sex offender title.

Veritas Action Foundation v. Rollins
20-1598
problem: (1) According to the “First Amendment”, whether a recording method for a serious crime that allows individuals to record secretly under any circumstances is not an exaggeration on the surface; (2) Whether the party challenging the speech suppression method has the burden to be accurate Explicitly articulate various expected speech activities to meet the maturity burden of the challenge presented.