Supreme Court takes IDEA, Fourth Amendment, and four other cases

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] granted certiorari [order list, PDF] Friday in six cases. In Forest Grove School District, Petitioner v. T. A. [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the Court will consider whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [text] permits a tuition reimbursement award against a school district and in favor of parents who unilaterally place their child in private school, where the child had not previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that such reimbursement is not barred.

In Safford United School District #1 v. Redding [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the Court will consider whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting a search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus in violation of school policy. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined [opinion, PDF] that the student's rights were violated.

In Cuomo v. Clearing House Association [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the Court will consider whether the New York State Attorney General is permitted to take certain measures to enforce state fair lending law against national banks by subjecting those entities to "visitorial powers" under 12 U.S.C. § 484 and 12 CFR § 7.4000 [texts]. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the Attorney General's actions were not permitted.

In Nijhawan v. Mukasey [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the Court will consider whether convictions for mail, bank, and wire fraud qualify as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act [text], subjecting petitioner to lifetime banishment from the US. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the convictions qualify as an aggravated felony.

In Bobby v. Bies [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the Court will consider whether the Double Jeopardy clause is violated by the holding of a state post-conviction hearing to determine the mental capacity of a capital defendant whose death sentence was affirmed before the 2002 Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia [opinion, PDF], which barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that there was a Double Jeopardy violation.

In U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the Court will consider whether the 30-day time limit in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure [text] 4(a)(1)(A) for filing a notice of appeal, or the 60-day time limit in Rule 4(a)(1)(B), applies to a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, where the United States has declined to intervene in that action. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found [opinion, PDF] that the time limits apply.



 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.