533 U.S. September 12, 17, 25, 2001 Batchelder points out in her opinion, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the panel's decision denying Byrd's successive habeas application is not "permitted to be the subject of a petition for rehearing." No. 01-3927 (CA6, Sept. 10, 2001), p. 26 (citing 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) (1994 ed., Supp. V)). And even if Byrd could seek en banc review, the Court of Appeals would be able to rule on the petition well before October 8. Indeed, the Court of Appeals issued the stay on September 10, and by the very next day the court had considered and rejected a judge's request for en banc reconsideration of the stay order. That leaves the rationale that a panel member needed "additional time to consider the matter." Of course, however, the panel has already issued its opinion. Seeing no justification for the stay, I would grant the State's application to vacate the stay. See Bowersox v. Williams, 517 U.S. 345 (1996) (per curiam) (“[I]t is 'particularly egregious' to enter a stay absent substantial grounds for relief" (citing Delo v. Blair, 509 U. S. 823 (1993) (per curiam)). Certiorari Denied SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 No. 01-6240 (01A243). BACON v. LEE, WARDEN, ET AL. Sup. Ct. N. C. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 353 N. C. 696, 549 S. E. 2d 840. Certiorari Dismissed SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 No. 00-8727. MCCARVER v. NORTH CAROLINA. Sup. Ct. N. C. [Certiorari granted, 532 U. S. 941.] Writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. Miscellaneous Order No. 99-1786. GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE CO. ET AL. v. KNUDSON ET AL. C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 531 U. S. 1124.] Motion of respondents for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument denied. September 25, 2001 533 U.S. Certiorari Granted No. 00-1567. YOUNG ET UX. v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 233 F. 3d 56. No. 00-1595. HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 237 F. 3d 639. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer No. 00-1831. UNITED STATES v. CRAFT. tiorari granted. Reported below: 233 F. 3d 358. No. 00-1853. SWIERKIEWICZ v. SOREMA N. A. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 5 Fed. Appx. 63. No. 00-1751. ZELMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OHIO, ET AL. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS ET AL.; No. 00-1777. HANNA PERKINS SCHOOL ET AL. v. SIMMONSHARRIS ET AL.; and No. 00-1779. TAYLOR ET AL. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS ET AL. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari in Nos. 00-1751 and 00-1777 granted. Certiorari in No. 00-1779 granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 234 F. 3d 945. No. 00-1770. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER ET AL. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Housing and Development Law Institute et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted. JUSTICE BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition. Reported below: 237 F. 3d 1113. No. 00-1937. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY v. WALTON. C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 235 F. 3d 184. No. 00-8452. ATKINS V. VIRGINIA. Sup. Ct. Va. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 260 Va. 375, 534 S. E. 2d 312. REPORTER'S NOTE The next page is purposely numbered 1301. The numbers between 976 and 1301 were intentionally omitted, in order to make it possible to publish in-chambers opinions with permanent page numbers, thus making the official citations available upon publication of the preliminary prints of the United States Reports. OPINION OF INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE IN CHAMBERS BROWN ET AL. v. GILMORE, GOVERNOR OF ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION No. 01A194 (01-384). Decided September 12, 2001 The application of Virginia public school students and their parents for an injunction against enforcement of a Virginia statute requiring public schools to observe a "minute of silence" each schoolday, pending this Court's disposition of their petition for certiorari, is denied. Applicants, who claim that the statute establishes religion in violation of the First Amendment, have been unsuccessful in their repeated attempts to obtain injunctive relief from both the District Court and the Court of Appeals and in their attack on the statute's merits. The All Writs Act, this Court's only authority to issue an injunction against enforcement of a presumptively valid state statute, is appropriate only if the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear, Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U. S. 1312, 1313, which is not the case here. Finding that Virginia's statute has a clear secular purpose-namely, to provide a moment for quiet reflection in the wake of instances of violence in the public schools-the Court of Appeals distinguished the present case from Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, in which this Court struck down a similar Alabama statute that was conceded to have the purpose of returning prayer to the public schools. At the very least, the lower court's finding places some doubt on the question whether Virginia's statute establishes religion in violation of the First Amendment. Justice Powell stayed a District Court order dissolving a preliminary injunction in Wallace when the plaintiffs there alleged that teachers led their classes in prayer daily. Here, by contrast, after more than a year in operation, the minute of silence seems to have meant just that. Also, that applicants did not make an immediate application to a Justice in September 2000, after the Court of Appeals denied their request for an injunction pending appeal, is somewhat inconsistent with the urgency they now assert. 1301 |