Author: Kent Scheidegger

Meese Institute at AAF

by · Dec 22, 2025 9:33 am

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III is a long-time friend and advisor to CJLF. His namesake legal institute has long been part of the Heritage Foundation, but he has announced a new one at Advancing American Freedom, an organization headed by former Vice President Mike Pence. AAF’s press release quotes Mr. Meese:

I am proud to announce Advancing American Freedom as the home for the new Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law. AAF has already established itself as a leader in the conservative movement.

I am confident that the lawyers and staff in the Meese Institute will continue to play a leading role in advancing the conservative legal movement in terms of their scholarship, and by working with allies to achieve our mutual objectives, educating the general public about important legal issues, helping to train the next generation of conservative lawyers, and defending the Constitution and rule of law.

The WSJ has this article. Continue reading . . .

Virginia legislation could release dangerous murderers and tie the hands of the parole board

by · Dec 11, 2025 2:09 pm

In the wake of the November election, with the governor’s veto threat removed, the Virginia legislature is proceeding to pass California-style legislation that takes soft-on-crime to new levels. Hans Bader has this post with the above title at Liberty Unyielding.

In a nutshell, the bill would make the crime that a prison inmate committed irrelevant to the parole decision for those inmates who were under 18 at the time they committed major felonies. Continue reading . . .

SCOTUS Monday

by · Dec 8, 2025 10:17 am

Today’s big SCOTUS news is the oral argument over whether Congress can prevent the President from firing officials of independent agencies. This has been a big debate in constitutional law going back at least as far as the administration of President Andrew Johnson (1865-1869). Update: Most observers of the argument expect the Administration position to prevail. See, e.g., this article in the WSJ.

There is far less action in criminal law. The court’s orders list today took no new cases, criminal or civil. Last Friday, the court issued a short list taking up four cases. The most newsworthy of these is the civil case on how broadly to construe the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” In particular, which children born to noncitizen parents are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? Continue reading . . .

Supreme Court November Arguments

by · Nov 3, 2025 11:32 am

The U.S. Supreme Court’s November argument calendar begins today. It is Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday this week and next except for Veterans’ Day, next Tuesday.

Here are the criminal and law-enforcement-related civil cases on the docket:

Today, Nov. 3: Rico v. United States.  Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.

Next Monday, Nov. 10: Landor v. La. Dept. Corrections:  Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

Next Wednesday, Nov. 12: Fernandez v. United States:  Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(1)(a) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U. S. C. §2255.

Next Wednesday, Nov. 12: Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States:  Nonretroactive changes in sentencing law as grounds for sentence reduction. Continue reading . . .

Federalist Society Convention — National Guard in Cities

by · Nov 3, 2025 11:14 am

The Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention is this week, Thursday through Saturday. It is being held at the Washington Hilton, having outgrown its traditional venue at the Mayflower Hotel. Many of the panels will be live-streamed for free.

Update 11/21: The panel recordings were offline for a time while they cleaned up the audio. The are accessible once again.

The panel for the Criminal Law Practice Group is “Crime, Cities, and the Guard: The Legal and Policy Dimensions of Domestic Troop Deployment.” Cully Stimson of the Heritage Foundation is on the panel. Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones is the moderator. The scheduled time is 3:45-5:00 EST pm Thursday, 12:45-2:00 pm PST.

Continue reading . . .

AI Hallucinations in Court Orders

by · Oct 29, 2025 10:31 am

The use of artificial intelligence (and sometimes artificial stupidity) has taken a dangerous turn. It’s deplorable when lawyers use AI to draft briefs with made-up precedents and false “facts,” at least without a thorough, human check. But briefs alone do not have legal effect, and the errors can be found by opposing counsel and the court.

But now there is a horrifying new turn. Daniel Wu reports for the Washington Post:

Two federal judges in New Jersey and Mississippi admitted this month that their offices used artificial intelligence to draft factually inaccurate court documents that included fake quotes and fictional litigants — drawing a rebuke from the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Continue reading . . .

Guns and Drug Users

by · Oct 20, 2025 8:54 am

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court took up yet another Second Amendment case, United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234.

The wide-ranging federal gun control statute (18 U.S.C. § 922) prohibits gun possession by, among many others, “(g) … any person … (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).”

Does that law sweep too broadly? The federal courts of appeals are divided. Continue reading . . .

Restitution and Ex Post Facto

by · Oct 15, 2025 10:00 am

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument on whether a restitution order under the federal Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is a criminal sanction, subject to the constitutional prohibition against retroactive legislation in the Ex Post Facto Clause. The case is Ellingburg v. United States, No. 24-482.

The legislation and its history provide enough indications that Congress intended a criminal sanction that the Solicitor General agreed with the defendant, and the court appointed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to argue in support of the court of appeals’ judgment. Appointed amici do not often prevail in this situation, although it does happen. Not likely in this case. Continue reading . . .

U.S. Supreme Court Arguments This Week — Habeas Corpus

by · Oct 13, 2025 3:51 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court has a two-day argument week this week, as today is Columbus Day. Three of the four cases are criminal cases, but none is a blockbuster. We have one case on habeas corpus, one on restitution and retroactivity, and one on the Fourth Amendment and emergency entry to houses. I will discuss the habeas corpus case in this post.

Bowe v. United States, No. 24-5438, on tomorrow’s (Tuesday’s) calendar, relates to a problem interpreting the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) with regard to successive petitions by federal versus state prisoners. An unusual aspect of the case, as far as Supreme Court habeas corpus cases go, is that the petitioner is actually correct, in my opinion. The Solicitors General of both the current and previous administrations think so too on one of the questions, so a special amicus has been appointed to argue in support of the lower court decision. Continue reading . . .

Standing Case in the Supreme Court

by · Oct 10, 2025 11:26 am

One of the requirements to file a civil suit in federal court is “standing.” That is, the plaintiff must have a sufficient interest in the subject matter. Just being against a law on principle is not enough. Determining what interests are sufficient has been a long-standing problem, and the rules are sometimes loosened when they operate, in practice, to completely immunize questionably constitutional laws from any challenge. The case of Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, which was argued in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, is a standing case.

CJLF has been involved in standing battles in our work on behalf of victims of crime. When we challenge the early release of a murderer or rapist on behalf of a victim or victim’s family, we are regularly met with an objection that the victim has no standing. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has fought us tooth and claw on this, although he is much milder in his objections to third parties seeking to help murderers. (See pp. 14-15 of this brief.) Continue reading . . .