[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] granted certiorari in 11 cases [order list, PDF] on Thursday.

Dalmazzi v. United States [cert. petition, PDF] Cox v. United States [docket], and Ortiz v. United States [cert. petition, PDF] are three cases that will be consolidated and will be given one hour each for oral argument. These cases deal with whether active-duty military officers can serve on the Court of Military Commissions Review (CMCR). The petitioners were members of the Air Force who were convicted [SCOTUSblog report] of different crimes in a military court. They are appealing their convictions on the grounds that only members of the military can preside over a military court, and the judges in the petitioners’ cases were civilians because of their CMCR position.

Collins v. Virginia [cert. petition, PDF] deals with whether the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception includes a police officer searching a vehicle without a warrant that is parked on the suspect’s property. The petitioner appealed his conviction for receiving stolen property, claiming that the police did not constitutionally obtain evidence.

The question in Hall v. Hall [cert. petition, PDF] is whether, when multiple cases are consolidated, a decision in a single one of those cases triggers a time limit for appeals if all the cases consolidated are from the same district. The claim arose from a mother bringing tort litigation against her son and his law firm.

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro [cert. petition, PDF] addresses whether “service advisors” at a car dealership are entitled to overtime pay when the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles.” Respondents are service advisors who are seeking overtime pay. The Supreme Court heard and remanded [opinion, PDF] this case in spring 2016.

The question in Byrd v. United States [cert. petition, PDF] is whether a the driver of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy when he has permission to drive the rental car but is not listed as a driver on the agreement. Petitioner was driving a car his girlfriend had rented for him when the police pulled him over for a traffic violation. They searched his car without suspicion or warrant. While a police officer may not conduct a “suspicionless and warrantless” search when a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the government asserts that there was no expectation of privacy because petitioner’s name was not on the rental agreement. Petitioner appealed his conviction.

In Janus v. American Federation [cert. petition, PDF] the court will decide whether it will overrule a previous decision that it is constitutional for the government to force its employees to join unions. The petitioner is an Illinois state employee who is being compelled to pay union fees.

In City of Hays v. Vogt [opinion, PDF] a police officer admitted to appropriating a knife from work, sparking a criminal investigation. At issue is whether the police department using statements made at the probable cause hearing was unconstitutional on the basis of self incrimination.

At issue in McCoy v. Louisiana [docket] is whether it is unconstitutional for an attorney to concede a defendant’s guilt without a defendant’s approval. The defendant was convicted of three first-degree murders and sentenced to death.

In Rosales-Mireles v. United States the court will decide what standard to use when correcting a district court’s error. The petitioner pleaded guilty to illegally re-entering the US, but the district court calculated his jail sentence incorrectly. The circuit court said that the error was not severe enough to correct.