Petitions To Watch

Petitions to Watch is an early monitoring of important cases at the appellate level that are likely to become petitions for certioriari before the U.S. Supreme Court, or where petitions have already been filed. Of particular interest are cases concerning the First, Second, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments, abortion, or Trump's executive orders.

First Amendment[edit]

Second Amendment[edit]

Fredric Russell Mance, Jr. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General, et al., which caused a big split with many dissenting opinions in the generally conservative Fifth Circuit. Counsel for Mr. Mance, who narrowly lost in asserting his Second Amendment right before the Fifth Circuit, obtained an extension from the U.S. Supreme Court to November 19 in order to file his petition for certiorari. Amicus briefs in support would then be due sometime before the last week in December 2018.

Abortion[edit]

Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Comm'r of the Ind. State Dep't of Health, 896 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. Oct. 5, 2018). The petition for certiorari is due on January 5, 2019, unless an extension is obtained.

The Seventh Circuit invalidated an Indiana statute that requires women to undergo an ultrasound procedure at least eighteen hours prior to having an abortion.

Trump's Executive Orders[edit]

United States v. Arpaio, (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2018): denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

Concurring in the denial:

Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio has appealed to our court from the district court's denial of a motion to vacate his conviction for criminal contempt of court. On April 17, 2018, a motions panel of our court issued an order authorizing the appointment of a "special prosecutor to provide briefing and argument to the merits panel" that will hear Arpaio's appeal. United States v. Arpaio, 887 F.3d 979, 980 (9th Cir. 2018). The role of the "special prosecutor" under the order will be limited to providing briefing and argument to the merits panel.A member of our court unsuccessfully sought en banc rehearing and reversal of the order of the motions panel. Several judges now dissent from the decision of our full court not to rehear the matter en banc. I concur in the denial of en banc rehearing. I write to emphasize two things—the limited role of the special prosecutor, and the legality of the order.