petition this week

This week, we’ve highlighted a proof petition asking the Supreme Court to consider whether IFC is immune from lawsuits over its actions involving the Tatamundra power plant in Gujarat, India, and Chicago police’s destroy or sell policy. The person’s property has not been recovered after 30 days, violating the Fourth or Fifth Amendment.

Business Activity Exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation Hear oral arguments in a case concerning choice of law rules under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.exist Jam v. International Finance Corporation, the Supreme Court faces another issue under the FSIA, the case in they are on remand Filed in early 2019 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. jam It began in 2015, when farmers and fishermen and other petitioners living near the Tata Mundra power plant in the Indian state of Gujarat sued IFC in federal district court in Washington, D.C. And with the approval of its Washington headquarters – it has “destroyed” the local environment and way of life.in the first jam In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that IFC had no absolute immunity as an international organization, but only “restricted immunity,” meaning that plaintiffs could sue over IFC’s business activities in the United States, or if IFC waived immunity.

On remand, the DC circuit reign again IFC is not affected by the petitioners’ lawsuit. First, the appellate court affirmed the district court and held that the FSIA’s business activity exception did not apply. Since the “construction and operation” of the Indian power plant is what “actually harms” the petitioners, their claims are not based on any of IFC’s business activities in the United States. Second, although the wording in the IFC charter states that “[a]litigation”, the Court of Appeal felt that it was “obliged” to find, based on precedent, that immunity would only be waived if the waiver would be “beneficial” to the organization – the Court reasoned that in this case it would not.

In their petition for a judge’s review, the petitioners maintain that the DC Circuit created a new circuit through its approach to the FSIA business activity exception and invented its principles, in the face of an apparent express waiver of immunity. Avoid giving up.

Chicago Police “Burn or Sell” Policy

exist Conyers v. Chicago, IL, Blake Conyers challenged the Chicago Police Department’s policy on selling or destroying personal property seized from an arrestee if the arrestee does not retrieve it within 30 days. Conyers sued under the Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments after Chicago police destroyed an earring, a bracelet and two cellphones that belonged to Conyers, who was in pretrial detention when 30 days passed . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that the district court rejected Conyers’ claim, in part because he had notified him of the need to repossess the property.

these and other petition this week as follows:

Conyers v. Chicago, IL
21-898
problem: Whether a municipality may, in accordance with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and in accordance with a clear policy, destroy or sell property seized during an inventory search of an arrested person who has been in custody for more than 30 days and cannot retrieve the property .

Ravens v. Fonteno
21-970
problem: whether “new” evidence, such as Schlupp v. Delo and McQuekin v.Perkins, means evidence not available at trial, or as broadly interpreted below, includes any evidence not presented at trial, including evidence known to the defendant and/or available through due diligence.

Idaho v.Howard
21-975
problem: When a police officer lawfully deploys a drug detection dog outside a vehicle, and without any instruction, prompting, or convenience from the officer, the dog briefly touches the vehicle or sticks its nose into an open window, does the dog’s behavior constitute a Fourth Amendment searches by officers.

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt
21-984
problem: Are supervisors earning more than $200,000 a year entitled to overtime pay because 29 CFR § 541.601 Still subject to detailed requirements 29 CFR § 541.604 In determining whether high-paid supervisors are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements.

Jam v. International Finance Corporation
21-995
problem: (1) Are there exceptions to the commercial activity immunity of foreign sovereigns and international organizations? foreign sovereign immunity law An action is permissible when the defendant’s alleged conduct resulting in its liability constitutes business activity in the United States, regardless of whether the other party’s conduct more directly caused the damage; (2) whether the treaty provisions provide that “[a]may be sued [international organization]”Waiver the organization’s immunity.