[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in four new cases for this term. In US v. Texas [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] the Court has been asked to decide whether at least one respondent has standing to challenge Deferred Actions for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program; whether the DAPA is un-reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act [text]; whether DAPA is contrary to law or violates the Constitution; and whether DAPA was subject to the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirement. The Obama administration announced the DAPA and the Deferred Action Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programs in November 2014. The programs were blocked by a federal district court in the Southern District of Texas last February. In November 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] affirmed the lower court’s order [text, PDF].

In Dietz v. Bouldin [SCOTUSblog Backgrounder], the Supreme Court has been asked to determine whether a judge may recall jurors for further service in the same case after the jury has been dismissed and the jurors have left the judge’s presence. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] held that a district court could re-empanel a jury shortly after dismissal [opinion, PDF], “but only if, during the period of dismissal, the jurors were not exposed to any outside influences that would compromise their ability to fairly reconsider the verdict.”

In Salman v. US, the Court has been asked to address whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain an insider trading conviction where the government failed to prove that the defendant would “personally benefit” in exchange for providing tips. This case urges the Court to adopt the standard of Newman v. US which held that a “tipee” “must have some knowledge of the personal benefit (however defined) that the inside tipper received for disclosing inside information.” The Supreme Court denied Newman certiorari [SCOTUSblog Backgrounder] in October.The Second Circuit Court of Appeals [official website] affirmed [order] Salman’s conviction last July.

Finally, in Mathis v. US [opinion, PDF], the Court will examine a circuit split considering “whether a court can consider a statute or subsection, outside of the convicting statute, that defines a term in the convicting statute.” Mathis was convicted as a felon in the possession of a firearm, and received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) [Congressional Research Service Overview]. The ACCA applies to individuals convicted of three prior violent felonies. Mathis alleges that his five prior convictions of second-degree burglary are non-violent under the ACCA as they do not qualify as “burglary” contemplated in the language of the ACCA.