Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-may-10/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:29:55+00:00

Document:
In its conference of May 10, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause; whether the Johnson rule made retroactive in Welch renders the residual clause of the career offender provision of the mandatory, pre-Booker sentencing guidelines unconstitutionally vague; and whether a railroad’s payment to an employee for time lost from work is subject to employment taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
Issue: Whether products-liability defendants can be held liable under maritime law for injuries caused by products that they did not make, sell or distribute.
Issue: Whether a railroad’s payment to an employee for time lost from work is subject to employment taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
Issues: (1) Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague; (2) whether conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery has as an element “the use … of physical force against the person or property of another,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A); and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals fo the 11th Circuit’s rule that reasonable jurists could not debate an issue foreclosed by binding circuit precedent, even when a judge on the panel issued the binding precedent and subsequently stated that the panel’s decision may be erroneous, misapplies the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Miller-El v. Cockrell and Buck v. Davis for determining whether a movant has made the threshold showing for a certificate of appealability.
Issues: (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) whether evading arrest with a motor vehicle is a “crime of violence” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).
Issues: (1) Whether a prior conviction for drug trafficking, Fla. Stat. § 893.135, that rests upon the mere possession of a specified quantity of drugs qualifies as a “controlled substance offense” for federal sentencing enhancement purposes, when the Florida statute is missing the requisite element of intent to distribute, an issue on which the circuits are divided; and (2) whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority under the commerce clause and is unconstitutional as applied to the intrastate possession of a firearm.
Issues: (1) Whether the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane is categorical, such that when the Supreme Court held that Johnson v. United States announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law that is retroactive to cases on collateral review in Welch v. United States, it made Johnson’s rule retroactive for purposes of all cases on collateral review; and (2) whether the Johnson rule made retroactive in Welch renders the residual clause of the career offender provision of the mandatory, pre-Booker Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutionally vague.
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions governing an alien’s removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague.
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions governing a noncitizen’s removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague.

References: § 924
 § 924
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16
 § 16
 § 893
 § 922
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16