In advance of the beginning of its new Term next week on the first Monday in October, The Supreme Court of the United States granted review in eight cases this morning:
FILARSKY V. DELIA, No. 10-1018: Is a private attorney hired by a city to conduct an internal affairs investigation entitled to qualified immunity against a plaintiff’s §1983 claims?
VARTELAS V. HOLDER, No. 10-1211: Whether the definition of “admission” in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C), as amended in 1996, is applicable to a lawful permanent resident alien who committed an offense identified in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2) (and was convicted of that offense upon a guilty plea) before 1996 and then, in 2003, departed from and returned to the United States.
ROBERTS V. SEA-LAND SERVICES, No. 10-1399: For purposes of determining compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, is the “applicable” national average wage the average for the year during which an employee suffers a disabling injury or for the year during which a formal compensation order is issued?
TANIGUCHI V. KAN PACIFIC SAIPAN, LTD., No. 10-1472: Does a district court have authority under 28 U.S.C. §1920(6) to award costs for the translation of written documents?
HOLDER V. GUTIERREZ, No. 10-1542, consolidated with HOLDER V. SAWYERS, No. 10-1543: Whether, for certain immigration law purposes, a parent’s years of lawful permanent resident status can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor.
WOOD V. MILYARD, No. 10-9995: Does an appellate court have the authority to raise sua sponte a 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) statute of limitations defense, and does the State’s declaration before the district court that it “will not challenge, but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of Wood’s habeas petition,” amount to a deliberate waiver of any statute of limitations defense the State may have had?
UNITED STATES V. HOME CONCRETE & SUPPLY, No. 11-139: Whether an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis in sold property is an “omi[ssion] from gross income” that can trigger an extended six-year assessment period, and whether a final regulation promulgated by the Department of the Treasury, which reflects the IRS’s view that an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis can trigger the extended six-year assessment period, is entitled to judicial deference.