Posted on Friday November 13th, 2020 at 3:59 pm by Andrew Hamm
This week we’re highlighting certification filings calling on the Supreme Court to review, among other things, the First Step Act reassessment, the amateurism in college sports under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and an exception to the warranty of the fourth amendment that allows the police enables bystanders to be held.
The First Step Act, passed in 2018, will be brought before the judges in the Bates v. United States case. Under Section 404 of the First Step Act, district courts can dismiss drug offenders under the light of the Fair Sentencing Act. This 2010 law raised the crack cocaine thresholds required to trigger mandatory minimum sentences, thereby reducing the differences in conviction between cracked cocaine offenses and powder cocaine offenses. In 2019, after the First Step Act came into effect, Drew Bates filed for a reduction in sentence under the newly retrospective Fair Sentencing Act. Bates also urged the district court to consider revising federal sentencing guidelines to mitigate roles, an amendment that was not in effect at the time of his original conviction. The District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that the First Step Act only allowed the courts to consider changes to the conviction under the Fair Sentencing Act. Courts were also unable to take into account changes to the sentencing guidelines. On the grounds that the first step law gives the district courts discretion in reviewing the guidelines and that the district courts are divided on the matter, Bates asked the judges to review the 10th district decision.
In the National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston and the American Athletic Conference v. Alston, Division I football and basketball players sued the NCAA and several college conferences under the Sherman Antitrust Act. In 1984, in the NCAA v Board of Regents case, the Supreme Court stated that eligibility rules, including that “athletes must not be paid” and “must be required to attend classes,” were competitive and otherwise should be analyzed than in typical cartel cases. Earlier this year, however, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the sports student payment restrictions were against the Sherman Act. In the NCAA petitions and at conferences, judges are asked to review the 9th Circle’s decision.
In Mastin v. United States, police officers executing an arrest warrant entered a hotel room where they met Darrius Mastin, who was not a suspect on the warrant. Officers arrested and arrested Mastin after a gun fell from his waistband as a person with a previous crime conviction in possession of a firearm. The question before the judiciary is whether an exception to the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement, which allows officers to detain bystanders while a search warrant is being carried out (Michigan v. Summers), allows it to do so while a warrant is being executed.
These and other petitions of the week are listed below:
CBX Resources, LLC v ACE American Insurance Co.
problem: Whether the Supreme Court should abolish the US Court of Appeals for the court-created “Finality Trap” of the 5th circuit and resolve the conflict between the US appeals courts regarding the finality or non-finality under 28 USC § 1291 of a judgment by one party – without prejudice to it – Remaining undamaged claims rejected.
Hull v. Rockwell
problem: Whether a debtor is allowed to keep a state homestead exemption within bankruptcy, regardless of the fact that the proceeds outside bankruptcy would be subject to attachment and enforcement because the debtor sold the apartment and the exemption has expired under applicable state law.
Mays v. Hines
problem: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruling – the overturning of Anthony Hines’ decade-long murder conviction and death sentence on the grounds that a state court improperly used Strickland against Washington when it concluded that Hines was not prejudiced due to deficiencies in his attorney’s performance during the guilt and punitive stages of his capital litigation – conflicted with Supreme Court precedents governing claims to ineffective legal assistance under the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act.
IQVIA Inc. v. Mussat
problem: Whether a district court with jurisdiction coinciding with a state court in the district can exercise personal jurisdiction over absent class member claims in an alleged class action when the court admittedly cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over absent class member claims when it does do had been brought in individual suits.
National Collegiate Athletic Association versus Alston
problem: Whether the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit wrongly ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s eligibility rules for the compensation of athletes violated federal antitrust laws, in contravention of other Circuit decisions and general antitrust principles.
Mastin versus United States
problem: Whether Michigan against Summers authorizes police officers executing an arrest warrant to arrest a bystander without individual suspicion.
American Athletic Conference versus Alston
problem: Whether Sherman’s Act empowers a court to subject the product-defining rules of a joint venture to a full fundamental rule review and to hold those rules unlawful unless the court finds them the least restrictive means that could have been used to achieve their competitive goal.
Bates versus the United States
problem: Whether a district court that chooses to re-convict under Section 404 of the First Step Act is prohibited from considering the current, legally correct section of a defendant’s sentencing guidelines.
Andrew Hamm, Petitions of the Week: First Step Act, Compensation for Athletes, Detained Spectators and More,
SCOTUSblog (November 13, 2020, 3:59 p.m.), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/petitions-of-the-week-first-step-act-student-athlete-compensation-detained-bystanders – and more/