A Habeas Circuit Cut up and the Public Sector Unions in Ohio

Petitions of the Week

By Andrew Hamm


at 6:25 p.m.

This week, we’re highlighting certification motions asking the Supreme Court to review, among other things, when a habeas corpus filing is a banned “second or consecutive” petition and whether it is the exclusive representation of Ohio for public sector unions against dissenting workers Public Sector Violates’ First Amendment Rights.

The Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 procedurally restricts prisoners’ ability to reopen their cases after their first appeals have been exhausted. In particular, AEDPA allows a request for a full review of “collateral” but limits “second or consecutive” requests to specific circumstances. In his petition against Cates in Balbuena, Alexander Balbuena claims that the lower courts will be split when the collateral review ends and the subsequent filings are “secondary or sequential”. In two counties, including the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd circle after a judgment by then Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first petition is incomplete while appeals are pending. As a result, any petitions filed during this appeal are not yet “second or sequential” and will not be dismissed by AEDPA. In other circuits, including the US Circuit 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in this case, any petition filed after the District Court ruled on the first petition, regardless of pending appeals, is “second or consecutive”.

In Balbuena’s case, detectives interviewing Balbuena in an interrogation room advised him of his right to a lawyer prior to questioning, without adding that he had the right to counsel during questioning. Balbuena then confessed his role in a murder. On the direct appeal and following his first petition, the courts rejected Balbuena’s argument that his admission was involuntary. With his appeal on the 9th Circuit pending, Balbuena was given permission to amend his petition in the District Court and he introduced a new argument: The detectives had hurt Miranda against Arizona by failing to inform him about his right to legal assistance during interrogation had informed. Since the District Court had already decided on Balbuena’s first petition, his new argument in the amended filing was a blocked “second or consecutive” petition. On the grounds that other circuits would have allowed him to make his new argument, Balbuena asks for a review by the Supreme Court.

In Janus v American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 2017, a split Supreme Court ruled that Illinois’ collection of agency fees from dissenting public sector employees violated the first amendment. In Thompson v Marietta Education Association, Jade Thompson brings a First Amendment challenge to Ohio law that makes public sector unions the exclusive agent for public sector workers in a bargaining unit such as a school district. Thompson, a Spanish teacher at Marietta High School, disagrees with positions held by her representative, the Marietta Education Association, including, for example, promoting her late husband’s offer for public office. She quotes the language of Janus and argues that exclusive representation still compels her to support these positions in violation of the First Amendment. The lower courts rejected Thompson’s argument about the 1984 Supreme Court ruling Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges against Knight. In this case, the court ruled that the plaintiff university professors had no right to take part in the “Meet and Confer” process of a public employer with exclusive representation. Thompson asks the judges to separate Knight from the facts of their case or to override it entirely.

These and other petitions of the week are listed below:

American Axle & Manufacturing Inc. v Neapco Holdings LLC
20-891
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, PC, whose lawyers contribute to SCOTUSblog in various functions, is one of the respondents’ lawyers in this case.
Problems: (1) What standard determines whether a claim is directed to an unpatented concept under Step 1 of the Supreme Court’s two-tier framework to determine whether an invention is eligible for patent 35 USC § 101;; and (2) whether patent eligibility (at each step of the Supreme Court’s two-tier framework) is a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the prior art at the time of the patent.

Thompson v Marietta Education Association
20-1019
Problems: (1) Is it against the first amendment to designate a union to represent and speak for public sector workers who object on their behalf to their endorsement? and (2) ob Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges against Knight, which confirmed a Minnesota restriction on attending Meet and Confer sessions to the faculty exclusive, should be overridden.

Doe Vs Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc.
20-1106
Problems: (1) Whether a de novo examination of a benefit entitlement according to the Law on Securing Retirement IncomeA summary judgment must be rejected if there is a real dispute over material facts. and (2) whether a district court is free to review evidence that was not part of the record before the plan administrator when an ERISA benefit claim is under de novo review and there is no contestation of plan proceedings.

American Hospital Association v Cochran
20-1113
problem: Whether deference to Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council applies to a legal question of interpretation that determines both the legality of official measures and the jurisdiction of the court.

Flynn versus United States
20-1129
Problems: (1) Whether the due process clause of the United States Constitution, as discussed in McCarthy versus United States and recent rulings of the Supreme Court require a public discussion of the elements of one 18 USC § 371 Conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (Klein Conspiracy) offense to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges brought against him before accepting a plea of ​​guilty; (2) whether the requirement of a connection between a particular administrative procedure and the conduct of a taxpayer is necessary to the constitutionality of a conviction following a conspiracy under 18 USC Section 371 to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (Klein Conspiracy) according to the Supreme Court decision in Marinello v. United States;; and (3) whether a defendant is entitled to a lawsuit to determine the amount of reimbursement under the sixth or seventh amendment to the United States Constitution.

Balbuena v. Cates
20-1207
problem: Whether a district court filing attempting to change a pending habeas petition on appeal, a “second or consecutive” petition under the Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996.

Comments are closed.