Supreme Court to consider release of names on same-sex marriage petition

The US Supreme Court on Friday granted certiorari in five cases. In Doe v. Reed, the Court will consider whether the First Amendment allows a state to compel the release of identity information about petition signers. The case arose over an order to publish the names of those who signed a Washington state petition to overturn a state law giving same-sex partners the same rights as married partners. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the names should be released, but the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay in October. The legislation was approved by Washington voters in November.

In Krupski v. Crociere, the Court will consider the appropriate construction of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C), which permits an amended complaint to "relate back" for statute of limitation purposes when the amendment corrects a mistake concerning the proper party's identity. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the rule does not apply to substitution of the correct defendant for a related corporation with a similar name where the plaintiff has imputed knowledge of the identity of the added defendant prior to filing suit. The Court has been asked to resolve a circuit split on the issue.

In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., the Court will consider whether § 502(g)(1) the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provides a district court discretion to award reasonable attorney's fees only to a prevailing party, and whether a party is entitled to attorney's fees when she persuades a district court that a violation of ERISA has occurred, successfully secures a judicially-ordered remand requiring a redetermination of entitlement to benefits, and subsequently receives the benefits sought on remand. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that § 502(g)(1) provides a district court discretion to award reasonable attorney's fees only to a prevailing party.

In Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, the Court will consider three issues: (1) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)plaintiffs are specially exempt from the requirement of showing a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain an injunction; (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that a district court may enter an injunction sought to remedy a NEPA violation without conducting an evidentiary hearing sought by a party to resolve genuinely disputed facts directly relevant to the appropriate scope of the requested injunction; and (3) whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it affirmed a nationwide injunction entered prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, which sought to remedy a NEPA violation based on only a remote possibility of reparable harm. The case arose over an injunction against the planting of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready alfalfa," pending an environmental impact statement.

In Rent-A-Center, West v. Jackson, the Court will consider whether the district court is required in all cases to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this "gateway" issue to the arbitrator for decision. The Ninth Circuit held that that the district court was required to determine whether the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.