<< Supreme Court Specialists | Main | News Scan >>

Tuesday Orders List

The U.S. Supreme Court's post-conference orders list is here.  It is released on a Tuesday because Monday was Columbus Day, a court holiday.

The Court has accepted for full briefing and argument Camreta v. Greene, No. 09-1454, a civil case on interviewing children at school when child abuse is suspected (noted here), and DePierre v. United States, No. 09-1533, on cocaine sentencing (noted here).

Also accepted is Bond v. United States, 09-1227, presenting the interesting federalism question, "Whether a criminal defendant convicted under a federal statute has standing to challenge her conviction on grounds that, as applied to her, the statute is beyond the federal government's enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment."  I would think so, but USCA3 thought not.

Ryan v. Doody, No. 09-1443, the case of the horrible massacre at a Buddhist temple in Arizona, is sent back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider in light of Florida v. Powell.

The Eleventh Circuit gets back the Florida case of Peterson v. McNeil, No. 09-11051, to reconsider in light of Holland v. Florida.  There is no Eleventh Circuit opinion.  That court just denied a certificate of appealability by summary order.

No sign of Wong v. Smith, No. 09-1031 (noted here), which is apparently re-re-listed. Multiple relistings plus the Court calling for the record are hints that a summary reversal may be in the cards.

Allen v. Lawhorn and Wilson v. Corcoran, two other state's petitions in murder cases noted here, are also absent from the list.  Ditto United States v. Gonzalez, No. 10-82, a Fourth Amendment case on the fallout from Arizona v. Gant, noted here.

Update: Anna Christensen at SCOTUSblog has the petitions to watch post for this Friday, and Wong v. Smith, Allen v. Lawhorn, and Wilson v. Corcoran are relisted.


If Alfonso Lopez had standing to argue that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress's authority (and he must have had standing, or else his case should have been dismissed), I'd think that surely a defendant would have standing to raise a Tenth-Amendment challenge to a federal statute. Or am I missing something?

Nope, you're not missing anything. See pp. 11-12 of the SG brief, linked in the follow-up post.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives