The Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York today and granted cert in seven cases on Friday.
*Issues below courtesy of SCOTUSBlog.
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 597 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2010)
Issues: (1) Whether the Fifth Circuit correctly held that plaintiffs in securities fraud actions must not only satisfy the requirements to trigger a rebuttable presumption of fraud on the market, but must also establish loss causation at class certification by a preponderance of admissible evidence without merits discovery; (2) whether the Fifth Circuit improperly considered the merits of the underlying litigation when it held that a plaintiff must establish loss causation to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption.
Lafler v. Cooper, 376 Fed. Appx. 563 (6th Cir. 2010)
Issue: Whether a state habeas petitioner is entitled to relief when his counsel deficiently advises him to reject a favorable plea bargain but the defendant is later convicted and sentenced pursuant to a fair trial.
Missouri v. Frye, 311 S.W.3d 350 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010)
Issues: Can a defendant who validly pleads guilty assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging that, but for counsel’s error in failing to communicate a plea offer, he would have pleaded guilty with more favorable terms? What remedy, if any, should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures?
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 590 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Issue: Whether the attorney-client privilege entitles the United States to withhold from an Indian tribe confidential communications between the government and government attorneys implicating the administration of statutes pertaining to property held in trust for the tribe.
Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 236 P.3d 616 (Nev. 2010)
Issue: Whether the First Amendment subjects state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny, the balancing test of Pickering v. Board of Education, or rational-basis review.
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., __ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 4723183 (2d Cir. 2010)
Issue: Whether a law that restricts access to information in nonpublic prescription drug records and affords prescribers the right to consent before their identifying information in prescription drug records is sold or used in marketing violates the First Amendment.
McNeill v. United States, 598 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2010)
Issue: The Court will decide whether a conviction under state law can be treated as a serious drug offense for purposes of a longer sentence under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, if the state law violated did not at the time of federal sentencing set a maximum prison term of at least ten years, but had done so at the time the crime was committed.