[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in three cases. In NRG Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the Court will consider whether the Sierra-Mobile doctrine applies when an entity not party to an interstate electricity contract contests the contract as not being "just and reasonable" as required by Section 206 of the Federal Power Act [text]. Under the Sierra-Mobile doctrine, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) [official website] must presume a wholesale rate contract is "just and reasonable," and that presumption can be overcome only by showing that the contract "seriously harms the public interest." The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the Sierra-Mobile doctrine does not apply when challenged by an entity not party to the contract.
In Schwab v. Reilly [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the Court agreed to hear two questions:
1. When a debtor claims an exemption using a specific dollar amount that is equal to the value placed on the asset by the debtor, is the exemption limited to the specific amount claimed, or do the numbers being equal operate to "fully exempt" the asset, regardless of its true value?
2. When a debtor claims an exemption using a specific dollar amount that is equal to the value placed on the asset by the debtor, must a trustee who wishes to sell the asset object to the exemptions within the thirty day period of Rule 4003, even though the amount claimed as exempt and the type of property are within the exemption statute?
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4003 [text] allows debtors to exempt certain assets from bankruptcy proceedings and provides a 30-day period for trustees to challenge those exemptions. The Court will consider whether a trustee may challenge the valuation of a properly exempted asset after the 30-day period. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that any challenge must come within the 30-day period.
In Kucana v. Holder [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the Court will consider the extent to which 8 USC § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) [text] strips courts of jurisdiction and "whether the statute removes jurisdiction from federal courts to review rulings on motions to reopon by the Board of Immigration Appeals." The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that it lacked jurisdiction to review Kucana's claim.