Financial Oversight & Management Board v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 22-1119

Opinion Date: July 18, 2022

Judge: William Joseph Kayatta, Jr.

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Constitutional Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the Title III court confirming a plan of adjustments for the debts of the Commonwealth and two of its instrumentalities in this action brought under the Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), holding that otherwise valid Fifth Amendment takings claims arising pre-petition cannot be discharged in Title III bankruptcy proceedings without payment of just compensation.

After the court charged with overseeing Title III proceedings confirmed the plan of adjustment at issue several stakeholders brought appeals challenging aspects of the court's confirmation order. At issue was the appeal of the Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico challenging the Title III court's conclusion that claimants owed just compensation for the taking of real property by debtors were entitled to receive satisfaction in full for on their claims. The First Circuit affirmed the Title III court's order confirming the plan, holding that discharging valid, pre-petition takings claims for less than just compensation would violate the Fifth Amendment and render a plan providing for such discharge unconfirmable under PROMESA.

Kajmowicz v. Whitaker

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Docket: 21-2434

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Rendell

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The then-president’s 2018 decision, following the resignation of Jeff Sessions, to rely on his authority under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d, to bypass the Department of Justice’s order of succession and to select an employee (Whitaker) rather than a Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer to oversee the Department of Justice raised significant and largely unresolved constitutional and statutory questions. Kajmowicz sued Whitaker; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); the Director of ATF, the United States of America, and the Attorney General of the United States, contending that Whitaker’s unlawful service as Acting Attorney General rendered a rule he promulgated concerning the scope of the term “machinegun” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 invalid.

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit without addressing the legality of Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General. Attorney General William Barr ratified the rule at issue; as long as he did so effectively, the rule may stand even if Whitaker served in violation of the Vacancies Reform Act or the Appointments Clause. The ratification forecloses Kajmowicz’s challenge.

Jonathan R. v. Jim Justice

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 21-1868

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: FLOYD

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Family Law

Plaintiffs brought a claim on behalf of thousands of West Virginia’s foster children challenging the State’s administration of child welfare services. Invoking Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the district court abstained from hearing the case in deference to parallel state-court proceedings. Plaintiffs alleged that a federal class action is the most—if not the only—effective way to achieve the kind of systemic relief they seek.

The Fourth Circuit reversed holding that principles of federalism not only do not preclude federal intervention, they compel it. Plaintiffs bring federal claims, and federal courts “are obliged to decide” them in all but “exceptional” circumstances. The court explained that Younger’s narrow scope safeguards Plaintiffs’ rights, bestowed on them by Congress in the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1875, to present their claims to a federal tribunal. 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The court further wrote For years, West 4 Virginia’s response to any foster-care orders entered as part of the individual state hearings seems to have been to shuffle its money and staff around until the orders run out, entrenching rather than excising structural failures. Thus, forcing Plaintiffs to once more litigate their claims piecemeal would get federalism exactly backward.

Paul Goldman v. Robert Brink

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 21-2180

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: KING

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Election Law

Pro se Plaintiff sought to pursue a civil action in the Eastern District of Virginia against several Commonwealth officials, alleging that the Old Dominion’s 2021 House of Delegates election contravened the federal and state constitutions. More specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Virginia was constitutionally required to use 2020 U.S. Census data to draw the legislative districts for the 2021 House of Delegates election. On October 12, 2021, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the Governor of Virginia and the State Board of Elections on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
 
On remand, the three-judge district court dismissed the entirety of Plaintiff’s complaint, ruling that he lacks Article III standing to sue. The court later reviewed the Standing to Sue Ruling, and found that the court possesses jurisdiction to review the Standing to Sue Ruling. The court then rendered an opinion to resolve both the Plaintiff’s Appeal and the Commonwealth’s Appeal.
 
The Fourth Circuit held that the three-judge district court properly ruled that Plaintiff does not possess the Article III standing to sue that is required to pursue this civil action. In making that determination, the court adopted the well-crafted and reasoned analysis of the Standing to Sue Ruling. Plaintiff cannot satisfy Article III’s injury in fact requirement, either as a voter or as a candidate for public office. However, the court modified the judgment of the three-judge district court to reflect that its dismissal of Plaintiff’s civil action is without prejudice. The court further, dismissed the Commonwealth’s Appeal as moot.

US v. David Miller

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 20-4095

Opinion Date: July 19, 2022

Judge: James Andrew Wynn, Jr.

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from his convictions for conspiracy to commit fraud, conspiracy to launder money, and eight counts of mail or wire fraud. He argued that his trial was constitutionally defective, his indictment was constructively amended, his jury instructions prejudiced him, and his conviction for conspiracy to launder money must be reversed for lack of sufficient evidence.
 
The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding that his arguments—most of which were not properly preserved—are meritless. The court held that Defendant’s right-to-compel challenge falters, at minimum, at the third step of the plain error inquiry because he fails to show how the district court’s alleged Fifth Amendment error affected the outcome of his proceedings.


Further, even if the probable-cause finding for Count 2 were flawed, the Government would still have been well within its rights to seize Defendant’s properties based on the underlying and unchallenged probable-cause findings for these other counts.
 
Next, the court wrote that Defendant failed to show that his indictment contained an error, much less a plain error. It is well established that “[t]he allegation in a single count of conspiracy to commit several crimes is not duplicitous, for [t]he conspiracy is the crime, and that is one, however diverse its objects.” United States v. Marshall, 332 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 2003).
 
Moreover, the court explained that even if it assumed that the district court’s concealment-money-laundering instructions were flawed, that error did not affect the outcome of Defendant’s proceedings because he was nevertheless convicted of conspiring to commit transactional money laundering.

SEC v. Hallam

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 21-10222

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Securities Law

The SEC accused Defendant of violating antifraud and registration provisions of the Securities Act and antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Defendant neither admitted nor denied those allegations but consented to a judgment containing four relevant prongs of relief. The SEC asked for “disgorgement” in that amount and calculated the prejudgment interest at $424,375.38. It did not specify the appropriate civil penalty but requested that the court impose one of the options in the highest tier allowed by statute.
 
The court entered final judgment ordering Defendant to pay $1,901,480 in “disgorgement” and $424,375.38 in prejudgment interest. It also imposed a civil penalty after concluding that Defendant’s conduct merited the highest amount provided by the Exchange Act
 
Defendant appealed each of those orders and the denial of an evidentiary hearing. He says the lack of an evidentiary hearing denied him due process. He also renews three substantive challenges to the district court’s remedies. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment order.
 
The court explained that none of Defendant’s challenges to the district court’s remedies has merit. He has foreclosed some of them by failing to raise them timely or to raise them properly. And Congress has foreclosed his position on the availability of disgorgement without tracing or a profit-generating res. The district court had authority to impose each element of its remedies, and it did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

Williams, et al v. City of Yazoo, et al

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 20-61061

Opinion Date: July 15, 2022

Judge: Gregg Costa

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

A man detained at the Yazoo County Detention Center died after bleeding internally for hours. His survivors alleged that law enforcement officials knew that the man had been assaulted with a metal pipe and that he was vulnerable to internal bleeding if injured, yet they ignored requests for help from the man his family, and his fellow detainees, and left the man to suffer in his cell until it was too late. In rejecting the officials’ qualified immunity defense at summary judgment, the district court found numerous factual issues that, if resolved in Plaintiffs’ favor, would establish their liability on the federal denial-of-care claim. It did not, however, consider whether that constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the man’s death.
 
The Fifth Circuit dismissed Yazoo City’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction, affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the individual defendants on the federal denial-of-medical-care claim, and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that it has granted qualified immunity when law enforcement misconstrued the symptoms of a serious medical condition for intoxication, or a less serious illness. Here, however, the officers’ knowledge of risk was based on much more than just symptoms: They also knew that the man had a life-threatening condition and had suffered trauma of the type that would trigger that condition. Those additional factors distinguish this case from the symptoms-only scenarios in Roberts and Cheney. Further, is clearly established that an official who refuses to treat or ignores the complaints of a detainee violates their rights.

Cunningham v. Blackwell

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Dockets: 21-6005, 21-6006, 21-6172, 21-6174

Opinion Date: July 18, 2022

Judge: Jeffrey S. Sutton

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law

The University of Kentucky investigated two dentistry professors for entering false data about whether they, or their students, had performed services for patients at a university clinic and who should be paid for those services. The professors had earned more for treating patients than they earned in salary; they had circumvented the University’s system for determining who performed services. While the investigation proceeded, the professors were barred from seeing patients in the clinic but performed their other duties. After the investigation, both professors left the University. The professors sued, alleging violations of their due process rights and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of summary judgment to the administrators on the due process claims involving the suspension of their clinical duties and one claim of constructive discharge. Because the administrators did not violate clearly established law, qualified immunity protects them. Even if the professors had a property interest in their clinical duties, the administrators did not violate any clearly established due process right when they suspended them from working in the clinic and allowed them to continue working in other roles. The court affirmed summary judgment for the administrators on a due process claim involving the early end to one professor’s appointment and on the professors’ First Amendment retaliation claims.

Myers v. City of Centerville, Ohio

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 21-3850

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Suhrheinrich

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

Myers, a Centerville Police Department detective sergeant, Myers reported to then-Lieutenant Brown and then-Police Chief Robertson, that Lieutenant Lavigne possessed and “possibl[y] disseminat[ed]” sexually explicit photos of minors that he obtained while investigating a “sexting" complaint at Centerville High School. Myers continued to pursue that allegation to no avail. Three years later, Myers sought whistleblower protection and met with City Manager Davis to report new allegations against Robertson, and to repeat the allegation against Lavigne, then met with an outside attorney appointed by Davis. After learning of the investigation, Robertson retired. Myers was interviewed but not hired for the vacant chief post, which went to Brown; the hiring panel included Lavigne. Myers was also passed over for two lieutenant positions. He was admitted to the FBI National Academy but Quantico rescinded that offer after its background investigator spoke to Lavigne. Myers was disciplined for writing a “character letter” for another city employee; the letter was critical of the city. He was later terminated for recording a meeting.

Myers sued. alleging First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion claiming qualified immunity. The district court erred by failing to meaningfully analyze the assertions of immunity by Brown and Davis at the pleadings stage, but Myers plausibly alleged First Amendment retaliation, and the defendants are not yet entitled to qualified or statutory immunity.

Skatemore, Inc. v. Whitmer

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 21-2985

Opinion Date: July 19, 2022

Judge: Eric L. Clay

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Plaintiffs, operators of bowling alleys and roller-skating rinks in Michigan, sued Michigan Governor Whitmer, former Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Director Gordon, and the Department alleging that various orders limiting the use of Plaintiffs’ properties early in the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article X of the Michigan Constitution.

The district court found that the defendants were entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not abrogate sovereign immunity. To accept Plaintiffs’ argument that states waived their sovereign immunity in suits that invoke a right incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment would destroy the protection the Eleventh Amendment was specifically ratified to provide; future plaintiffs could claim any right incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment is no longer subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Because Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, the ultra vires theory of skirting Eleventh Amendment immunity is inapplicable.

United States v. Olson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 21-2128

Opinion Date: July 18, 2022

Judge: St. Eve

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Olson arrived in Madison, Wisconsin during the second night of violent civil unrest following the death of George Floyd and armed himself with a gun. Three Madison Police officers observed Olson take the gun from the trunk of his car, then apprehended Olson, who was a felon, retrieved the gun, and placed him under arrest, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Olson attempted unsuccessfully to suppress the gun.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his motion. Olson’s initial seizure was a Terry stop, not a de facto arrest. Given the unique circumstances of the night, the officers’ use of force when approaching Olson “was eminently justifiable.” They saw Olson conceal a gun in the waistband of his pants; saw Olson drinking from a “tallboy” style, suggesting Olson could be intoxicated; and saw Olson carefully scrutinize his surroundings, which suggested avoiding detection. The officers reasonably suspected Olson was engaged or about to engage in criminal activity while the city was experiencing an almost complete collapse of civil order. Any omissions or inaccuracies in the officers’ contemporaneous reports are plausibly explained by their sleep deprivation and stress.

United States v. Peoples

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 21-2630

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: Scudder

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Peoples led a gang that robbed four Indiana banks in 1997-1998, brandishing an assault rifle. At least once, he pointed the gun at tellers and threatened to kill them. Peoples stole getaway cars; twice he burned them. A jury convicted Peoples on multiple counts of armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. 2113(d)), using a firearm during a felony (section 924(c)) and to commit a felony (844(h)), and maliciously destroying a vehicle by fire (844(i)). The four 924(c) convictions required the imposition of consecutive minimum sentences totaling 65 mandatory years. The two 844(h) convictions required a sentence of at least 30 consecutive years. Peoples was sentenced to almost 111 years.

In prison, Peoples has successfully completed many classes and received no disciplinary infractions. Peoples, at substantial risk to his own safety, took steps to save another person’s life in prison. Nine correctional officers supported his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which cited his rehabilitation and the reality that, under the First Step Act’s amendments to 924(c), he would face a much shorter sentence today for the same armed bank robberies.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. In a compassionate release motion, the prisoner must identify an 'extraordinary and compelling’ reason warranting a sentence reduction, but that reason cannot include, alone or in combination with other factors, consideration of the First Step Act. Peoples otherwise failed to identify an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting early release.

United States v. Protho

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 21-2092

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: Kirsch

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Ten-year-old Amani, walking home, was grabbed by a man and pushed into a vehicle. The man hit her eye and lip, threatened to kill her, parked in an alley, pulled down her leggings, and touched her inside of her underwear. Amani escaped, ran away, and flagged down a passing car. The driver called 911. A week later, police arrested Protho, who was charged with kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) and (g)(1)). During a nine-day jury trial, 29 witnesses, including Amani and Protho, testified. The trial focused on the kidnapper’s identity.

The jury found Protho guilty, and the district court sentenced him to 38 years’ imprisonment plus restitution, including $87,770 for Amani’s psychotherapy needs. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the admission of testimony by three expert witnesses: an FBI photographic technologist who analyzed surveillance videos that were admitted at trial, an expert on fiber evidence, and a manager of Ford's Design Analysis Engineering Department, who identified the vehicle on the videos. The district court did not clearly err in handling either of Protho’s Batson challenges or in allowing Amani to testify via closed-circuit television, 18 U.S.C. 3509. The court rejected challenges based on the “interstate commerce” element of the statute and to the district court’s handling of an evidentiary question at trial. The court noted the “overwhelming evidence” of guilt.

Wilson v. Boughton

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 20-2938

Opinion Date: July 19, 2022

Judge: Kirsch

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Wilson rekindled a romantic relationship with Yegger, whose five children include FT, who was seven years old and had special needs. The Bureau of Child Welfare had received reports of physical abuse and unexplained injuries on Yegger’s children, who were eventually placed with foster families. Each child received a medical checkup. A pediatric nurse practitioner observed five genital lesions on FT. A pediatrician later observed genital and anal lesions; an antibody test later allowed her to diagnose them as herpes. In a recorded interview with a forensic interviewer, FT recounted eight times that she had been sexually assaulted by Wilson. Wilson was charged with Engaging in Repeated Acts of Sexual Assault of the Same Child, which requires at least three qualifying acts “within a specified period of time.” The judge instructed the jury that it could find Wilson guilty of the lesser-included offense of First-Degree Sexual Assault of a Child, which requires only a single qualifying act. The jury found Wilson guilty of the greater offense. The judge referred to “overwhelming testimony that you committed these outrageous assaults” and sentenced Wilson to 37 years’ imprisonment.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Wilson’s petition for habeas relief. Wisconsin courts reasonably rejected his arguments that the evidence could not support his conviction and that his counsel’s representation was constitutionally deficient.

United States v. Douglas Schneider

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-1112

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: BENTON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant and the government reached a binding plea agreement whereby Defendant would plead guilty to transportation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(a) and receive a below-guideline sentence of 150 months. At a change-of-plea hearing in March, the district court rejected the plea agreement. At the end of the second hearing, the district court accepted Defendant’s guilty plea. The district court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
 
Defendant appealed arguing that the district court participated in plea negotiations in violation of Rule 11(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring vacatur of his conviction and sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order.
 
The court explained that Defendant waived “all rights to appeal or collaterally attack . . . [his] conviction or sentence [and] all non-jurisdictional issues.” Because Defendant’s appeal requests vacatur of his conviction and sentence, it falls within the scope of the waiver. However, a violation of Rule 11(c)(1) is appealable unless the defendant specifically waives “an appeal challenging the voluntariness of his plea.” Here, Defendant did not waive his right to appeal, thus the court wrote that Defendant must show that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. The court explained that although at least one factor favors Defendant, the particular facts and circumstances in the entire record here do not show that the Rule 11 violation affected Defendant’s substantial rights.

United States v. LaSamuel Richardson, III

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 21-2741

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: GRUENDER

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). He appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, two additional evidentiary rulings, and the application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(a)(3).
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court first concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest Richardson because the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest was sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that Defendant committed the offense of indecent exposure.
 
Further, the court concluded that the officers properly searched Defendant’s person and his car after he was arrested. The search of Defendant’s person was a proper search incident to arrest. The search of the CR-V was a proper probationary search because Defendant was subject to a probationary search condition and there was reasonable suspicion to believe that he possessed firearms based on the pistol magazine found in his pocket or that he violated the law by committing the offense of indecent exposure, both of which were prohibited by his probation conditions.
 
Moreover, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the Government to introduce evidence about Defendant’s six prior convictions. Contrary to Defendant’s claim, the probative value of the evidence of his prior convictions was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Finally, the court explained it need not decide whether North Dakota robbery qualifies as a crime of violence because any alleged error was harmless.

GABBI LEMOS V. COUNTY OF SONOMA

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 19-15222

Opinion Date: July 19, 2022

Judge: Miller

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s dismissal of her claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that a sheriff’s deputy used excessive force in arresting her. The district court held that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because Plaintiff was convicted of willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing the deputy during the same interaction in violation of Cal. Penal Code section 148(a)(1).
 
The en banc Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Defendants. The court held that because the record did not show that Plaintiff’s section 1983 action necessarily rested on the same event as her criminal conviction, success in the former would not necessarily imply the invalidity of the latter.
 
Heck would bar Plaintiff from bringing an excessive force claim under section 1983 if that claim were based on force used during the conduct that was the basis for her section 148(a)(1) conviction. Crucially, the criminal jury was told that it could find Plaintiff guilty based on any one of four acts she committed during the course of her interaction with the Deputy. Because the jury returned a general verdict, it is not known which act it thought constituted an offense. Although any of the four acts could be the basis for the guilty verdict, Plaintiff’s section 1983 action was based on an allegation that the Deputy used excessive force during only the last one. The court held that if Plaintiff were to prevail in her civil action, it would not necessarily mean that her conviction was invalid; and the action was therefore not barred by Heck.

USA V. SEGUNDO DOMINGUEZ-CAICEDO

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 19-50268

Opinion Date: July 18, 2022

Judge: Milan Dale Smith, Jr.

Areas of Law: Admiralty & Maritime Law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendants in three consolidated cases were convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine on board a vessel, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on board a vessel, and aiding and abetting. They challenged the district court’s denial of their pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment. Defendants also argue that the prosecutor committed misconduct in his closing argument. The Defendants made individual claims as well.
 
Defendants argued that even if outrageous government conduct does not require dismissal of the indictment, the district court should have used its supervisory powers to provide the same remedy, asserting that the government should tread lightly in international waters, and the court should not condone mistreatment of foreigners with no connection to the United States. The Ninth Circuit wrote that pursuant to United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1995), that is not a sufficient reason to hold that the district court abused its discretion by not dismissing the indictment. The court, therefore, affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the indictment.
 
Further, the court held that a court has the power to dismiss an indictment for egregious violations of Rule 5, and that the proper inquiry is whether transportation to the United States as a whole was unnecessarily delayed, rather than whether there was some other district in the United States in which the defendant could have been brought before a magistrate judge more quickly. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in its determination that 23 days was not an unreasonable delay.

USA V. SHANE NAULT

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 20-30231

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Nguyen

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and felon in possession of a firearm, but reserved the right to appeal the denial of the motions. An officer stopped the vehicle after learning that the vehicle— whose registered owner had an outstanding arrest warrant—was in the parking lot of a gas station.
 
In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the officer unconstitutionally prolonged the vehicle stop when he asked Defendantto provide his license, registration, and proof of insurance because the suspicion that motivated the stop had evaporated once the officer determined that Ross was not in the vehicle. The government countered that the stop was supported by independent reasonable suspicion because the officer began to suspect that Defendant was intoxicated shortly after initiating contact.
 
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motions to suppress. The panel wrote that the circumstances of the officer’s encounter with Defendant’s implicate the same vehicle safety purpose discussed in Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), under which a routine document check would remain part of the officer’s mission even when the suspicion that justified a stop was based on an outstanding warrant rather than a traffic violation.
 
The court wrote that Defendant failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that any statement or omission in the affidavit was intentionally or recklessly false or misleading, where an expert report provided by Defendant at most establishes that the canine’s alert was unreliable on a single unrelated occasion.

McWilliams v. Dinapoli, et al.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 21-7045

Opinion Date: July 19, 2022

Judge: Robert Edwin Bacharach

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

A federal district court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could determine that a law-enforcement officer, Officer Michael DiNapoli, had punched, tackled, and used a chokehold on plaintiff-appellee Greg McWilliams. At the time, McWilliams was suspected only of trespassing on a marina by riding in a golf cart. McWilliams sued DiNapoli under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In response, DiNapoli moved for summary judgment, arguing that: (1) his use of force had been reasonable; and (2) he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, DiNapoli argued: (1) a surveillance video blatantly contradictd the district court’s factual determination that McWilliams had not touched DiNapoli’s chest; and (2) even under the district court’s factual determinations, DiNapoli did not commit a constitutional violation because his use of force was reasonable. The Tenth Circuit concluded it was bound by the district court's factual assessment, and the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity.

United States v. Adams

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 21-3043

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: Robert Edwin Bacharach

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant-appellant Briar Adams was convicted of aggravated battery. The district court applied U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(4) to defendant who had a prior conviction in Kansas for aggravated battery. In considering that conviction, the court classified aggravated battery as a crime of violence and sentenced Adams to 51 months’ imprisonment. Adams challenged this classification, arguing that Kansas’s crime of aggravated battery included conduct that wouldn’t create a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines. To this, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed: "in Kansas an aggravated battery could stem from battery against a fetus, and the guidelines’ definition of a crime of violence wouldn’t cover battery against a fetus. Because the Kansas crime of aggravated battery doesn’t constitute a crime of violence," the Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

United States v. Babcock

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 20-4003

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Harris L. Hartz

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Zachary Babcock appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate and correct his sentence on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued his counsel failed to object to a sentencing-guidelines enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on prior Utah convictions of a “controlled substance offense” as defined by USSG § 4B1.2(b). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously held Colorado and Kansas statutes that prohibited a "mere offer" to sell a controlled substance, without requiring proof of intent to actually distribute or complete a sale, did not satisfy the definition of "controlled substance offense." The Tenth Circuit found guideline commentary stated that an attempt to commit a controlled-substance offense was itself a controlled-substance offense, and the Court's opinions left open the possibility that an offer-to-sell statute could satisfy the conditions necessary to be considered an attempt-to-sell statute. Defendant contended his trial counsel should have argued at sentencing: (1) that an offer to sell under the Utah statute was not necessarily an attempt to commit a controlled-substance offense; and (2) that the guideline commentary stating that an attempt to commit a controlled-substance offense was also a controlled-substance offense improperly expanded the text of the guideline.The Tenth Circuit determined defense counsel's failure to make those two arguments did not constitute deficient performance because the first argument lacked merit and the second "would have been a stretch at the time."

Kidanemariam Kassa v. Antionette Stephenson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 20-12281

Opinion Date: July 18, 2022

Judge: JILL PRYOR

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Legal Ethics

An assistant district attorney (the “DA”) in Fulton County, Georgia obtained a material witness warrant requiring Plaintiff to appear as a witness at trial. Plaintiff voluntarily appeared at trial, making execution of the warrant unnecessary. After the trial ended, the DA failed to inform the trial judge that the warrant needed to be recalled. A few months later, a police officer arrested Plaintiff and placed him in jail because of the outstanding warrant. A judge eventually ordered Plaintiff’s release.
 
Plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action alleging, among other things, that the DA’s failure to initiate the warrant’s cancelation violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The DA moved to dismiss the suit arguing that as a prosecutor she was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. The district court agreed and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against her.
 
The Eleventh Circuit reversed and held that absolute prosecutorial immunity does not extend to DA’s failure to take action to cancel the warrant. The district court thus erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint.
 
The court wrote that determining whether prosecutorial immunity applies requires the court to take a fact-specific functional approach. Here, the court found that applying Third Circuit precedent from Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2008), results in the conclusion that the DA is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Thus the DA has failed to show that absolute immunity protects her post-trial conduct here.

Robert W. Otto, et al. v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, et al.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 19-10604

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law

Petitioners filed for rehearing in Robert W. Otto, et al. v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, et al. The Eleventh Circuit requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard by the court sitting en banc. A majority of the judges in active service on the court voted against granting rehearing en banc. Thus, the court ordered that this case will not be reheard en banc.

SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, et al. v. Governor of the State of Georgia, et al.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 20-13024

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: WILLIAM PRYOR

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law

Georgia enacted the Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act in 2019. 2019 Ga. Laws Act 234 (H.B. 481). A group of abortion-rights advocacy groups, providers, and practitioners filed a two-count complaint naming as defendants multiple state officials in their official capacities. The abortionists’ first count alleged that the Act’s prohibition on post-fetal-heartbeat abortions violated women’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See H.B. 481 Section 4. The abortionists’ second count alleged that the definition of “[n]atural person” in section 3 of the Act, see id. Section 3, is unconstitutionally vague on its face. The abortionists’ complaint requested preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining the enforcement of the Act, a declaratory judgment that the Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and attorney’s fees.
 
The district court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting the state officials from enforcing the Act and declared that sections 3 and 4 of the Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction and reversed the judgment, holding that the prohibition of abortion after fetal heartbeat in the Act is subject only to rational basis review and that abortion prohibitions survive rational basis review. Further, the court held that the definition of natural person is not facially void for vagueness.

Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd. v. Gina Raimondo

Court: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Docket: 21-5219

Opinion Date: July 19, 2022

Judge: KATSAS

Areas of Law: Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Constitutional Law, International Trade

Acting under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) the Department of Commerce has maintained a so-called Entity List to restrict designated foreign parties from receiving United States exports.
 
Plaintiff, Changji Esquel Textile Co, operates a spinning mill in Xinjiang. The United States has determined that China abuses the human rights of Uyghurs and other religious or ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, including imprisonment and forced labor. Changji and its parent company filed a lawsuit alleging that the Department, in adding Changji to the Entity List, violated ECRA and its implementing regulations, the APA, and the Due Process Clause. They moved for a preliminary injunction on the theory that the alleged ECRA and regulatory violations were ultra vires. The district court denied the motion on the ground that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on this claim.
 
The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that to prevail on an ultra vires claim, Plaintiff must establish three things: “(i) the statutory preclusion of review is implied rather than express; (ii) there is no alternative procedure for review of the statutory claim; and (iii) the agency plainly acts in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the statute that is clear and mandatory.
 
The court explained that the canons invoked by Plaintiffs can resolve statutory ambiguity in close cases, but they do not allow the court to discern any clear and mandatory prohibition on adding entities to the List for human-rights abuses, particularly given the breadth of section 4813(a)(16) and the deference owed to the Executive Branch in matters of foreign affairs.

Rohan Ramsingh v. TSA

Court: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Docket: 21-1170

Opinion Date: July 15, 2022

Judge: Patricia Ann Millett

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Petitioner, an Army veteran, arrived at the Tampa International Airport to pick up two of his children who were visiting for the holiday. After a swab of Petitioner’s hands tested positive for traces of explosive material, screening personnel from the Transportation Security Administration attempted to perform a full-body pat-down. Citing medical reasons, Petitioner repeatedly refused to be patted down and was subsequently escorted away from the checkpoint by law enforcement.
 
The agency assessed Petitioner a civil penalty for “interfer[ing] with screening personnel in the performance of their screening duties[.]” 49 C.F.R. Section 1540.109. Petitioner petitioned the DC Circuit to overturn the penalty on the ground that his refusal to submit to a pat-down, particularly in light of his medical justifications, did not constitute interference under the regulation. The court denied the petition finding that the agency lawfully applied its interference regulation to Petitioner’s conduct.
 
The court explained that it has recently defined the “ordinary meaning” of interfere as “to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes: comes into collision or be in opposition.” Here, in light of the established meaning, the TSA logically concluded that Petitioner’s conduct interfered with TSA personnel engaged in screening operations. TSA policy requires that whenever an individual triggers a positive explosives alarm, he or she must undergo a full-body pat-down. Petitioner’s repeated resistance to being patted down was “in opposition” to and “r[a]n at cross-purposes” with that policy.
 
Further, the court found that TSA’s conduct did not approach the level of egregiousness or outrageousness needed to establish a violation of substantive due process.

State v. Muhammad

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Docket: CR-21-0073-PR

Opinion Date: July 15, 2022

Judge: King

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of thirteen felony counts of aggravated harassment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Defendant's jury-trial waiver.

At issue on appeal was whether, in a case where a criminal defendant's competency has been put at issue, a trial court must make a specific finding of heightened competency before determining that the defendant's waiver of the right to a jury trial is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding (1) Arizona law does not require a finding of heightened competency for a jury-trial waiver where a defendant's competency has been put at issue; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Defendant had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial.

People v. Mataele

Court: Supreme Court of California

Docket: S138052

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Cantil-Salauye

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder and sentencing Defendant to death, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.

Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court properly excluded two prospective jurors for cause; (2) the "substantial impairment" standard used for determining jury bias in capital cases did not violate Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury; (3) there was no constitutional violation in the denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges against him; (4) there was no error in the court's evidentiary rulings; (5) the trial court erred by failing to provide the jury with a cautionary instructions defining confessions, but the error was harmless; (6) Defendant did not demonstrate any basis for the Court to find error in California's death penalty laws; and (7) a limited remand was appropriate for the sole purpose of allowing the trial court to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike the prior serious felony enhancement and the firearm enhancements.

California v. Beasley

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: G060302(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: William W. Bedsworth

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Danny Beasley, who had a lengthy criminal history, was on parole from a 25-to-life sentence when he committed this first degree robbery. He used a knife in the commission of the offense, which exposed him to a maximum sentence of at least 35 years to life. The trial court dismissed all three of Beasley’s prior strike convictions, his three prior serious felony convictions and the weapon-use enhancement, and sentenced him to the low term of two years in prison. The district attorney objected and filed this appeal. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court’s order dismissing the prior strike convictions plainly “fell outside the bounds of reason under the applicable law and the relevant facts.” Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the matter remanded to allow Beasley an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea.

California v. M.H.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: E074452(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 15, 2022

Judge: Carol D. Codrington

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After defendant-appellant M.H. was convicted of a criminal offense, she was committed to the California Department of State Hospitals at Patton as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) under Penal Code section 2962. While committed, M.H. petitioned under section 2966 (c) challenging her commitment and requesting appointment of counsel and a hearing. The trial court appointed counsel for defendant, and defendant requested a bench trial. Toward the beginning of the bench trial, the trial court advised defendant of her right to a jury trial under section 2966 (b), but did not advise her of her right to call, confront, or subpoena witnesses. Defendant did not object, waived her right to a jury trial, and stipulated to the trial court’s ruling on her petition based on the parties’ papers. The trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant qualified as a MDO and denied her petition. On appeal, defendant contended section 2966 (b) required the trial court to advise her of her right to call and confront witnesses and subpoena them if necessary, that the trial court erred in failing to do so, and that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise her of her rights. To this the Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the district court.

In re N.L.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: D079759(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Buchanan

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

Minor N.L. appealed an order adjudging her a ward of the court. She argued: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that she willfully and maliciously committed felony arson of property; and (2) the case should have been remanded for the juvenile court to consider informal supervision under Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2, applying changes to the law that became effective on January 1, 2022 as a result of Senate Bill No. 383 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). After review, the Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence to support the true finding, but the Court agreed that N.L. was entitled to a conditional reversal and remand for the trial court to consider informal supervision under the law as amended by Senate Bill No. 383.

Idaho v. Hollist

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Criminal

Docket: 48295

Opinion Date: July 19, 2022

Judge: Stegner

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Brian Hollist challenged a district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Hollist was arrested in Idaho Falls after an officer approached him while he was sleeping on a canal bank. The officer was responding to check on Hollist's welfare. After advising the officer he did not need medical assistance, Hollist attempted to leave several times; however, each time the officer insisted that Hollist remain. When Hollist declined to identify himself, the officer handcuffed him and ordered him to sit down on the grass. The officer later discovered that Hollist had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Following his arrest, officers found a glass pipe with white residue and a bag with a small amount of methamphetamine inside. Before trial, Hollist moved to suppress the methamphetamine and pipe, arguing: (1) the officer was not performing a community caretaking function at the time he was detained; (2) the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him; and (3) the eventual discovery of the arrest warrant did not purge the taint of his unlawful seizure. The district court denied Hollist’s motion to suppress. Hollist timely appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion to detain Hollist, and the officer's unlawful seizure of Hollist was not sufficiently attenuated from the discovery of contraband. The district court's denial of Hollist's motion to suppress was reversed and the matter reversed for further proceedings.

City Of Gary v. Nicholson

Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Docket: 22S-MI-00252

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Slaughter

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Immigration Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this action in which Plaintiffs challenged the City of Gary's local ordinance designed to protect the rights of immigrants, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this action.

Plaintiffs, four Indiana residents, challenged the "welcoming ordinance" adopted by Gary in 2017 establishing its commitment to protecting the rights of immigrants, seeking a declaration that four sections of the ordinance violated Ind. Code 5-2-18.2 and enjoining the city from enforcing those sections. The trial court entered summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of standing, holding that where Plaintiffs alleged no injury but instead argued that neither statutory nor public standing requires an injury, Plaintiffs did not meet constitutional requirements for conferring standing.

State v. Hassan

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Docket: A21-0453

Opinion Date: July 13, 2022

Judge: G. Barry Anderson

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the sentence imposed upon Defendant was not unconstitutionally cruel.

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the conviction; and (2) a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of release is not unconstitutionally cruel under Minn. Const. art. I, section 5 when imposed on a twenty-one-year-old defendant who has been convicted of first-degree premeditated murder.

Doe v. N.H. Attorney General

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2020-0447

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

Petitioner John Doe appealed a superior court order dismissing his petition for declaratory and injunctive relief for failure to state a claim under either RSA 105:13-b (2013) or the New Hampshire Constitution. In April 2016, while employed as a patrol officer by a town police department, Doe was investigated by that department for denying that he wrote in permanent marker on a department rain jacket. Although Doe “was led to believe” he would only receive a “verbal counseling” for what he understood to be a misunderstanding, he later found that the investigation resulted in a one-page written report. In April 2017, after leaving the department, Doe was informed by a letter from the County Attorney’s Office that, from a review of his personnel file, his name was being placed on the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES). Doe did not contest his inclusion on the EES at that time, but later, Doe submitted two requests to remove his name from the EES to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO). Both requests were denied for lack of an “order or other determination” overturning the original finding of misconduct. Citing RSA 105:13-b and his right to due process under the Federal Constitution, Doe filed a petition for declaratory relief and a request for preliminary and permanent injunctions against the AGO, seeking review of his personnel file, removal from the EES, and attorney’s fees. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded RSA 105:13-b, II did not authorize the trial court to review the contents of an officer’s personnel file outside the scope of a particular criminal case. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling on Doe's state constitutional due process issue, and remanded for further proceedings without prejudice to Doe amending his petition given a statutory change.

Crystal Point Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kinsale Insurance Company

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Docket: A-76-20

Opinion Date: July 18, 2022

Judge: Anne M. Patterson

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Insurance Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Plaintiff Crystal Point Condominium Association, Inc. obtained default judgments against two entities for construction defect claims. Kinsale Insurance Company was alleged to have insured those entities, under the Direct Action Statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-2. The relevant policies both contained an arbitration agreement providing in part that “[a]ll disputes over coverage or any rights afforded under this Policy . . . shall be submitted to binding Arbitration.” Crystal Point filed a declaratory judgment action against Kinsale, alleging that it was entitled to recover the amounts owed by the entities under the insurance policies issued by Kinsale. Kinsale asserted that Crystal Point’s claims were subject to binding arbitration in accordance with the insurance policies. Kinsale argued that the Direct Action Statute did not apply because Crystal Point had not demonstrated that neither entity was insolvent or bankrupt. In the alternative, Kinsale contended that even if the statute were to apply, it would not preclude enforcement of the arbitration provisions in the policies. The trial court granted Kinsale’s motion to compel arbitration, viewing the Direct Action Statute to be inapplicable because there was no evidence in the record that either insured was insolvent or bankrupt. An appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, finding the evidence that the writs of execution were unsatisfied met the Direct Action Statute’s requirement that the claimant present proof of the insured’s insolvency or bankruptcy and determining that the Direct Action Statute authorized Crystal Point’s claims against Kinsale. The appellate court concluded the arbitration clause in Kinsale’s insurance policies did not warrant the arbitration of Crystal Point’s claims, so it reinstated the complaint and remanded for further proceedings. The New Jersey Supreme Court determined Crystal Point could assert direct claims against Kinsale pursuant to the Direct Action Statute in the setting of this case. Based on the plain language of N.J.S.A. 17:28-2, however, Crystal Point’s claims against Kinsale were derivative claims, and were thus subject to the terms of the insurance policies at issue, including the provision in each policy mandating binding arbitration of disputes between Kinsale and its insureds. Crystal Point’s claims against Kinsale were therefore subject to arbitration.

Bridges v. North Dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2022 ND 147

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Lisa K. Fair McEvers

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

John Bridges appealed district court orders and judgments granting the State’s motions for summary judgment and denying Bridges’ applications for postconviction relief as untimely, barred by misuse of process and res judicata, and for lack of genuine issues of material fact. Bridges was convicted following guilty pleas to murder and kidnapping in 2012 and attempted murder in 2013. He did not appeal either conviction. Bridges previously applied for postconviction relief. Bridges argues summary disposition of his applications was inappropriate and he was entitled to evidentiary hearings in each case. Finding no reversible error however, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court orders.

Interest of Skorick

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2022 ND 141

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Lisa K. Fair McEvers

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Edward Skorick appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Skorick argued the district court’s factual findings were insufficient to legally conclude he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Specifically, Skorick contended because he did not receive negative behavioral acknowledgements over the review period, the State failed to meet its burden. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court made adequate findings to demonstrate Skorick had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The district court considered the testimony and evidence presented, including Skorick’s past and present conduct, in making its finding he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The court noted Skorick’s history of negative behavior at the North Dakota State Hospital, including being oppositional to staff, cursing at staff, and calling staff stupid, to the point of having outside time cut short. The court found Skorick has threatened to commit an offense to get out of the State Hospital so he can return to the state penitentiary. The court stated these behaviors had occurred through October 2020, roughly one year before the hearing, but also indicated Skorick had engaged in inappropriate behavior in early 2021. The court found Skorick refused blood pressure medication in October 2020, and the record reflects Skorick has a history of refusing his medication, including a period in May 2021. The court found, although he did not recently receive negative behavioral write ups, Skorick had not implemented meaningful changes to interrupt his pattern of sexual offenses, Skorick continued to be impulsive and disregard the feelings of others, and Skorick’s behavioral issues remained unchanged and pervasive. Accordingly, the district court judgment was affirmed.

North Dakota v. Anderson

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2022 ND 144

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Gerald W. VandeWalle

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Richard Anderson appealed an order denying his motion challenging the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(4)(r) and seeking modification of his probation conditions. He argued the probation condition restricting his internet access violated his constitutional rights. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Anderson’s as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the statute was not ripe for review.

Santomauro v. McLaughlin

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2022-Ohio-2441

Opinion Date: July 19, 2022

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Election Law

The Supreme Court ordered the General Assembly to pass a new congressional-district plan that complied with the Ohio Constitution, holding that the plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission on March 2, 2022 unduly favored the Republican Party and disfavored the Democratic Party in violation of Ohio Const. art. XIX, 1(C)(3)(a).

On January 14, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the congressional-district plan passed by the General Assembly was invalid in its entirety and directed the General Assembly to adopt a new plan that complied with Article XIX. After the redistricting commission adopted the March 2 plan, Petitioners filed original actions challenging the plan. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the March 2 plan did not comply with Article XIX, section 1(C)(3)(a) of the Ohio Constitution and was therefore invalid.

State ex rel. T.B. v. Mackey

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2022-Ohio-2493

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Family Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of procedendo to compel Franklin County Probate Court Judge Jeffrey Mackey to lift a stay in a probate case and proceed with Relators' adoption petition, holding that the court abused its discretion by allowing the adoption proceeding to languish in this case.

In July 2019, Relators filed a petition to adopt Z.W.D., identifying K.T. as the minor child's biological mother. After the Supreme Court held in 2020 that indigent parents have a constitutional right to counsel in adoption proceedings in probate court K.T. asked the probate court magistrate to appoint counsel to represent her because she was indigent. The probate court stayed the matter and then, in October 2021, determined that K.T. was indigent. In April 2022, Relators filed this complaint alleging that the probate court's stay to allow K.T. to apply for indigent representation was unreasonable and unconscionable. The Supreme Court granted a writ and ordered the probate court to appoint counsel for K.T. within thirty days of this decision, holding that the probate court should take all reasonable steps to identify potential counsel.

In Re: Nom. Robert Jordan

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Docket: 56 MAP 2022

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: Wecht

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Election Law

This matter began with a challenge to the nomination petition of Robert Jordan, a candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination for the office of State Representative of the 165th Legislative District. Objector Fred Runge sought to remove Jordan from the ballot for the May 17, 2022 primary election on the ground that Jordan had moved into the district less than a year before the November 8 general election and therefore could not satisfy the residency requirements set forth in Article II, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Commonwealth Court found Objector’s claim non-justiciable and dismissed his challenge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Given the need to resolve the appeal expeditiously to provide notice to the parties and election administrators, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision in a per curiam Order dated April 19, 2022. The Court also directed the Secretary of the Commonwealth to remove Jordan's name from the ballot, finding that by a preponderance of the evidence, Jordan had not lived in the 165th Legislative District for at least one year preceding the general election. The Court published this opinion to explain its ruling.

Pennsylvania v. Jones-Williams

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Docket: 27 MAP 2021

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: Mundy

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

On July 5, 2014, at around 4:42 p.m., Appellee Akim Jones-Williams drove his car at approximately two miles per hour across train tracks. An approaching train collided with the car and pushed it nearly one-quarter mile before it stopped. Upon arriving at the scene, emergency personnel found Appellee outside the vehicle. Appellee’s fiance, Cori Sisti, and their daughter, S.J., were still inside the car. Medics declared Sisti dead at the scene, but transported Appellee and S.J. to York Hospital for medical treatment. Several individuals told the investigating lieutenant that they smelled burnt marijuana coming from Appellee and the car. Therefore, at approximately 6:00 p.m., the lieutenant asked a sergeant to interview Appellee at the hospital and obtain a “legal blood draw.” When the sergeant arrived at the hospital, Appellee was restrained in a hospital bed fading in and out of consciousness and unable to respond to basic questions. As such, the sergeant could not communicate to Appellee the consent of the form. Nevertheless, the sergeant later learned that hospital personnel drew Appellee’s blood at 5:56 p.m. The record did not establish why that blood was drawn, but it is clear that it was drawn prior to the sergeant's arrival. The sergeant completed paperwork requesting the hospital's lab to transfer Appellee's blood sample to a police lab for testing for controlled substances or alcohol. The resulting toxicology report revealed that Appellee’s blood contained Delta-9 THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Appellee was arrested in April 2015, and ultimately convicted of homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence; homicide by vehicle; endangering the welfare of a child (“EWOC”); recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”); and related charges. Appellee filed an omnibus pre-trial motion, in which he moved to suppress the blood test results. He argued that police lacked probable cause that he was driving under the influence, that his blood was seized without a warrant and without satisfying the exigency exception, and that 75 Pa.C.S. § 3755 did not justify the seizure in the absence of exigent circumstances. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concurred with the superior court that evidence from the blood sample should have been suppressed at trial. The matter was remanded for a new trial.

Pennsylvania v. Pownall

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Docket: 17 EAP 2021

Opinion Date: July 20, 2022

Judge: Dougherty

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellee Ryan Pownall, a former Philadelphia Police Officer was charged with killing David Jones by gunfire while on duty in his capacity as a police officer. Anticipating Pownall might pursue at trial a peace officer justification defense under 18 Pa.C.S. §508, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (“DAO”), on behalf of the Commonwealth, filed a pretrial motion in limine seeking to preclude the trial court from using Suggested Standard Jury Instruction (Crim) §9.508B, which largely tracked Section 508. The DAO argued that since the justification statute supposedly violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), so too must the standard jury instruction based on the statute. The trial court disagreed, concluding the DAO’s pretrial motion, by itself, was “insufficient to establish the unconstitutionality of Section 508[.]” Moreover, the court believed the DAO’s suggested remedy — proposing that it rewrite several disjunctive “ors” within the statute to conjunctive “ands” — was an “inappropriate” request for it to “judicially usurp the legislative function of the Pennsylvania General Assembly and rewrite Section 508 out of whole cloth.” For those reasons it denied the DAO’s request to certify the case for interlocutory appeal. When the DAO appealed anyway, the superior court quashed, reasoning the trial court’s order was not collateral and did not substantially handicap or terminate the DAO’s prosecution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the superior court erred in quashing the appeal. Because the Supreme Court concluded it did not, the judgment was affirmed.

Vermont v. Sinquell-Gainey, Vaz

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Citation: 2022 VT 19

Opinion Date: July 18, 2022

Judge: Carroll

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The State appealed a trial court order granting defendants Michael Sinquell-Gainey and David Vaz's motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement after an automobile stop. The State argued a Newport police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendants because he observed a traffic violation and because the totality of the circumstances supported reasonable suspicion of impaired driving. After review of the trial court record, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed that the stop was justified based on reasonable suspicion of impairment. The Court therefore reversed and remanded.

Conservation Northwest v. Commissioner of Public Lands

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 99183-9

Opinion Date: July 21, 2022

Judge: G. Helen Whitener

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review centered on the Department of Natural Resources' ("DNR") land management strategies applicable to certain federal land grants (“state lands”) and county land grants (“forest board lands”), which involves harvesting timber from these lands to generate revenue for state institutions and counties. The petitioners, a group of individuals and nonprofit organizations (collectively Conservation NW), challenged DNR’s land management strategies on the grounds they violated the mandate under Washington Constitution article XVI, section 1 that “[a]ll the public lands granted to the state are held in trust for all the people.” Conservation NW argued DNR’s strategies prioritized maximizing revenue from timber harvests and undercut its obligation to manage granted lands for the broader public interest, which would have been better served by prioritizing conservation and efforts to mitigate climate change, wildfires, and land erosion. DNR contended it had a trustee obligation to manage the state and forest board lands specifically for the state institutions enumerated in the Enabling Act and the county beneficiaries. DNR acknowledged its land management strategies generated revenue but not “at the expense of forest health.” The trial court dismissed Conservation NW’s lawsuit against DNR pursuant to County of Skamania v. Washington, 685 P.2d 576 (1984), establishing DNR as a trustee under the Enabling Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case.

Jewkes v. State

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Citation: 2022 WY 90

Opinion Date: July 18, 2022

Judge: Gray

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to the maximum term of fifteen to twenty years for aggravated vehicular homicide and a concurrent six months for driving under the influence, holding that the district court plainly erred when it considered Defendant's silence and community expectations in sentencing her.

On appeal, Defendant argued that her constitutional right to a fair sentence was violated when the district court "emphasized, and likely punished, her decision to exercise her constitutional rights at the time of her arrest" and when the court expressed that "the severity of the sentence depended upon the county in which it presided over her." The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing, holding that the district court erroneously incorporated constitutionally-prohibited factors into its sentencing decision and that the application of those constitutionally-prohibited factors in sentencing undermined the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.

Transportation Security for New York City Straphangers

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, ZACHARY G. GARRETT

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and rising 3L Zachary G. Garrett propose two measures to improve the safety of public transportation in New York City. Specifically, Professor Estreicher and Mr. Garrett suggest that (1) stationing at least one police officer at each turnstile (or set of turnstiles), around the clock, and (2) installing weapons screeners at every subway station would reduce violence and crime.

Read More

Twitter’s Lawsuit Paints Elon Musk as a Trump-Like Troll: That’s Potentially Good for Shareholders but bad for Everyone Else

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on Twitter’s lawsuit against Elon Musk over Musk’s announcement that he was terminating his April agreement to purchase the company for $44 billion. Professor Dorf describes how Musk’s bully-like behavior is reminiscent of Donald Trump’s and describes the possible (and likely) remedies the Delaware court might deem appropriate.

Read More