In this edition of Petitions of the Week, Andrew Hamm highlights five pending petitions that pertain to a variety of issues. Among the petitions are issues pertaining to Second Amendment rights in Massachusetts—where a ban forbids the possession of ammunition magazines or firearms—and First Amendment rights as it relates to religious beliefs, the right to refuse service, and same-sex marriage. Another pressing issue comes from Kentucky where a petition brings into question compulsory display-and-describe ultrasound laws as it pertains to First Amendment rights for physicians. You can read an excerpt about the petitions featured in this week’s edition of Petitions of the Week below.
_______
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether compulsory display-and-describe ultrasound laws, such as the Kentucky Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, abridge physicians’ freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment; whether a floral designer’s First Amendment rights to free exercise and free speech protect her from having to create custom floral art celebrating same-sex weddings; and whether a Massachusetts ban on the possession of firearms and ammunition magazines for lawful purposes infringes an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The petitions of the week are below the jump:
Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington
19-333
Issues: (1) Whether a state violates a floral designer’s First Amendment rights to free exercise and free speech by forcing her to take part in and create custom floral art celebrating same-sex weddings or by acting based on hostility toward her religious beliefs; and (2) whether the free exercise clause’s prohibition on religious hostility applies to the executive branch.
19-376
Issue: Whether, when a party mistakenly but timely files a case in a forum that lacks jurisdiction, that can ever support equitably tolling the statute of limitations.
Petitions of the Week is published on the SCOTUSblog each week by Andrew Hamm.
_______
Read the rest of this edition on SCOTUSblog.com.
_______
Jorge J. Perez is an attorney in South Florida. He is a self-professed history buff.