The Supreme Court of the United States granted review today in 14 cases:

  • Smith v. Bayer Corp., No. 09-1205: When a federal multidistrict court has denied class certification, may it enjoin absent class members from relitigating class certification in a state court action?
  • Kentucky v. King, No. 09-1272: Does the "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement apply when the exigency (sounds indicating the destruction of evidence) is arguably created by the police (by knocking on the suspect's door)?
  • Astra USA v. Santa Clara County, No. 09-1273: When a federal statute does not confer a private right of action, do federal courts have federal common law authority to create a private right of action if the statutory requirement sought to be enforced is embodied in a contract of which the would-be plaintiff is a third party beneficiary?
  •  FCC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 09-1279: The Freedom of Information Act exempts records compiled for law enforcement purposes from mandatory disclosure when such disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of "personal privacy." Does that exemption protect the "privacy" of a corporate entity?
  • General Dynamics Corp. v. United States, No. 09-1298, and Boeing Co. v. United States, No. 09-1302 (consolidated for argument): Can the government maintain a claim against a party if it invokes the "state secrets" doctrine to deny that party a defense to that claim?
  •  J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, No. 09-1343, and Goodyear Luxemburg Tires v. Brown, No. 10-76 (to be argued in tandem): When a foreign corporation places products into the stream of commerce, when is that foreign corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in a given forum state?
  • United States v. Tinklenberg, No. 09-1498: When is the time between the filing of a pretrial motion and its disposition automatically excluded from the deadline for commencing trial under the Speedy Trial Act?
  • Freeman v. United States, No. 09-10245: Whether a court is precluded from amending a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement regardless of any subsequent change to the Sentencing Guidelines underlying the plea agreement.
  • Bullcoming v. New Mexico, No. 09-10876: Does it violate the Confrontation Clause if a crime lab supervisor testifies about a forensic test that the supervisor did not personally conduct or observe?
  • Sykes v. United States, No. 09-11311: Whether a prior conviction for resisting law enforcement is a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
  • Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179: Whether a non-Article III bankruptcy court can enter a final order on a debtor's compulsory counterclaim to a creditor's proof of claim?
  • Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, No. 10-188: Whether a federal agency’s response to a Freedom of Information Act request is a “ report . . . or investigation” within the meaning of the False Claims Act provision barring FCA claims based on reports or investigations that have been publicly disclosed.

Although the Court will not formally begin its 2010 October Term until next Monday, October 4, this early announcement of those cases filed over the summer in which the Court has decided to grant review follows the Court's recent practice. The Court's disposition of the remainder of the cases on its summer lists is expected to be announced Monday as part of the first Order List of the new Term.