No. 01-1862 Woodford v. Garceau
Here we have a death penalty case where the question is whether the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) apply to a petitioner who had applied for an attorney and a motion for stay of execution in order to apply for habeas corpus, but who had not actually petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. AEDPA purports to exclude “cases pending” from its scope, and the question here is whether the petitioner’s actions were enough to make his case “pending” without having filed his petition.
How, you ask, would AEDPA affect Garceau’s case if it were applied? Frankly, I have no idea.
As usual, Jeremy’s post on the Goldstein Howe blog (here) does a much better job explaining this case than I could, or at least better than I care to at the moment. I will go out on a limb and predict that the Court will REVERSE the Ninth Circuit.
No. 01-1269 City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope
In this case, the respondents applied to the petitioner city for a permit to build low-income housing. The permit was granted, but a group of citizens, concerned about increases in crime, drugs and apparently children, caused a referendum that somehow prevented the permit from being issued or becoming effective or something like that. Again, a more fulsome explanation of the question presented in this case, whether they can do that, can be found here, written by Jacob this time. I predict that the Court will AFFIRM. I just have a hunch.