SCOTUS to consider 2 important cases this week during Friday’s conference.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hold a weekly conference this Friday, during which two cases will be considered which we will have our eyes on.
The losing party in a federal appeal can petition the SCOTUS to consider their case. An application for consideration is called a Writ of Certiorari. Each year, the SCOTUS receives thousands (approximately 8000) Writs of Certiorari and decides to hear only approximately 1% (one percent) of the cases it considers. This consideration process takes place at ‘conferences’ where the Justices get together and decide which cases to hear.
If they do not select a case, (deny certiorari) the ruling of the appellate circuit stands. If they select a case (grant certiorari) the SCOTUS will hear the case and the result could mean a different outcome. More important than the result for the parties in the case, is the fact that a SCOTUS decision becomes binding precedent for all federal circuits.
We are closely watching two cases that are being considered in conference this Friday, November 30; Boyd v. Washington and Prison Legal News v. Jones.
In Boyd the Court would consider: Whether the requirement of frequent, in-person reporting renders an offender-registration law punitive, such that applying the law retroactively violates the ex post facto clause. This case is important to us because it addresses the ex post facto argument in the context of “next generation” sex offender laws. It is also important for us to watch because it asks the question whether frequent, in-person, registration (in the case of Boyd, weekly, in-person, trips to the registration office) is punishment. A decision in this case will have a impact on our in-person challenge.
In Prison Legal News, the Court would consider: Whether the Florida Department of Corrections’ blanket ban of Prison Legal News violates a petitioner’s First Amendment right to free speech and a free press. The Florida Department of Corrections has banned Prison Legal News, an award-winning monthly publication featuring content directed to the specialized interests of inmates, from all Florida prison. No other state or federal prison system has banned PLN on the basis of unsubstantiated “safety concerns”. This case is important to us for several reasons. First, many of our loved ones (or ourselves) are unnecessarily being denied access to an important publication. Second, our State seems to like to pass laws based on unsubstantiated “safety concerns” and the ability to violate constitutional rights based on unsubstantiated “concerns” directly impacts our cause. And finally, Prison Legal News has been a close ally of the Florida Action Committee. PLN’s parent company, Human Rights Defense Center, Inc., was one of the ONLY organizations to point out the discrimination contained in Amendment 4.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Boyd v. Washington
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/18-39-opinion-below.pdf
Prison Legal News v. Jones
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/18-355-opinion-below.pdf
Don’t forget Vasquez v. Foxx out of the 7th circuit.
Scotus case 18-386
It’s already been granted cert.
Scotus requested a brief in opposition which is due Nov. 30th
Where do you see that it has been granted Cert., Cassandra? I don’t know that to be true at all!
Confirmed that Certiorari has not been granted (yet): https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-386.html
My sincerest apologies FAC; I forgot to add “petition ” after cert. Thus I meant “cert petition “.
Scotus did request BIO( brief in opposition) on Nov. 9th.
Just curious if anyone has any thoughts on whether Scotus asking for BIO is a good or bad thing for the case.
Cassandra, it’s just routine. The state’s attorney had filed a waiver to respond unless the Court requested her to do so. One of the clerks for the Supreme Court probably requested a response from her just to make the record more complete. Maybe even a dig at her for being too lazy to respond in the first place.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-386/65313/20181001134706455_Waiver.pdf
We can’t read anything into it for sure. The Court already knows the issue and the arguments for and against it. All we can do is hope that they have the courage to admit that their 2003 decision was simply incorrect on both the underlying facts and the legal principles involved. Every related petition that comes before them adds more weight for the need to act.
that seems like the perfect expost to bring down Sorna
judge states that cause they were a member of the price club first and then after being a member a new law come out where they can live is ok as they had notice prior to violating that law
it goes on to say that when they bought a home or moved into an apartment that a law was already in place
the people wearing the black dress is having the cake and eating it to!
under this ruling, nothing can ever be expost what a crock of BS these judges are really pulling at strings trying to keep these laws when they know without a doubt they are wrong
now the question to ask is why? do they make $$ off of it? family member? always follow the $$$
Just a small correction to the post. The application for consideration is actually called a Petition For Certiorari. The petition is asking the Supreme Court to GRANT a writ of certiorari. If the Court decides that the case merits its attention, it issues the writ, which is basically an order to the lower courts involved in the case to send them the record of the case for review.
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1
You are correct, Gerald. Thanks for the correction.
The Constitution seems to be violated with impunity by many ‘do-gooder’ politicians willing to sell any lie to support their election in a society ignorant of the truth concerning sex offenders.
Florida is nothing but a two-faced monster. We get punished for behavior but certain politicians get free rides. Isn’t that right Mark Foley? What was those saying Sex offender has more victims they never got caught for. I guess those in power will never see the insides of courtrooms unless they suing someone for slander. What I don’t understand why he was never brought before the Judge for his behavior. Where is all this hype about “safety for children” when any politicians gets caught?
If 99% of appellate rulings stand, what are those rulings? Which side has won on appeal, and which side seeks the challenge in SCOTUS?
In other words, what are those rulings, with respect to the two cases above— which side won on appeal, which side seeks cert.? It wasn’t clear from the story as written.
Dear Jacob,
The loser is the party seeking the writ. For instance, Miranda v. Arizona is the case name where “Miranda rights” were born because Miranda was the loser who sought review by SCOTUS…and ultimately he prevailed.