Posted Wed, July 15th, 2020 10:04 am by Andrew Hamm
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that ask the court to decide, among other things, whether a petitioner who has no available remedy in habeas, through no lack of diligence on his part, is barred by Heck v. Humphrey from pursuing a Section 1983 claim challenging the validity or duration of his incarceration and whether an arbitrator may compel class arbitration without finding actual consent, and instead based only on a finding that the agreement does not unambiguously prohibit class arbitration and should be construed against the drafter.
The petitions of the week are below the jump:
Laut v. United States
Issues: (1) What test, if any, should be used to determine whether a constructive amendment impacted a defendant’s substantial rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b); and (2) what showing is required to determine whether a constructive amendment is “plain” error under Rule 52(b).
Hueso v. Barnhart
Issue: Whether, notwithstanding the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) — which allows a prisoner whose claim for postconviction relief is otherwise barred to petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the Section 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention — an individual serving a wrongfully enhanced sentence is barred from obtaining relief, solely because the wrongfulness of the sentence was established retroactively by a court of appeals decision.
Olson v. Amatuzio
Issue: Whether a petitioner who has no available remedy in habeas, through no lack of diligence on his part, is barred by Heck v. Humphrey from pursuing a Section 1983 claim challenging the validity or duration of his incarceration.
Sterling Jewelers Inc. v. Jock
Issue: Whether an arbitrator may compel class arbitration — binding the parties and absent class members — without finding actual consent, and instead based only on a finding that the agreement does not unambiguously prohibit class arbitration and should be construed against the drafter.
Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water
Issue: Whether Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison, which stated that employers suffer an “undue hardship” in accommodating an employee’s religious exercise whenever doing so would require them “to bear more than a de minimis cost,” misinterprets 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j) — which specifies that “‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” — and should be overruled.
Petitions of the week,
SCOTUSblog (Jul. 15, 2020, 10:04 AM),