Author: Kent Scheidegger

USCA-DC Orders Flynn Case Dismissal

by · Jun 24, 2020 8:55 am

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today ordered the district judge in the Michael Flynn case to grant the Government’s motion to dismiss. The opinion is by Judge Rao, joined by Judge Henderson. The decision is not a surprise, given the strong language in the Circuit’s Fokker precedent. See this post. Judge Wilkins dissents in part, disagreeing with the majority’s decision to go forward on the merits now rather than wait for the district court to rule on the motion.

Continue reading . . .

Criminal Witch-Hunting

by · Jun 19, 2020 11:28 am

When does the present witch-hunt atmosphere cross the line from merely deplorable into criminal? A Vermont school board may have crossed the line. They have removed a school principal from her duties, put her on administrative leave, and stated a determination that “she will no longer lead our school.” That is, they have stated an intent to remove her from her position permanently. See this press release. And what was the principal’s offense that warranted this action? She posted on her personal Facebook page, not a school page, a statement refusing to grovel in front of the Black Lives Matter movement and endorse everything they do and demand. In my opinion, this is a crime under federal civil rights law, 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Continue reading . . .

Supreme Court Fast-Tracks Federal Execution Petition

by · Jun 18, 2020 5:07 pm

In the on-going litigation over the federal execution protocol, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted the murderers’ motion to fast-track the briefing on whether the high court should take the case up. The government did not oppose the motion.

The government’s response is due tomorrow, as are any amicus curiae briefs. The murderers’ reply is due Monday. That would allow the Court to consider the case at its conference next Thursday.

Continue reading . . .

A Supreme Bait-and-Switch

by · Jun 17, 2020 1:55 pm

The Supreme Court yesterday stayed the execution of Texas murderer Rubin Gutierrez. And what did the State of Texas do to warrant this last-minute interference with the execution of a very thoroughly reviewed judgment? They did exactly what Justice Kavanaugh said last year was a perfectly acceptable solution to the problem.

Continue reading . . .

What do regular folks think about police presence?

by · Jun 16, 2020 3:48 pm

Far too often, loud people identified as “activists” are treated as representatives, speaking for the people they claim to be concerned about. That is a major mistake. The activists typically have not been elected by anyone. The way to find out what the regular folks think is to ask them. If you can’t ask them all, ask a validly selected representative sample.

Listening to activists, one might think that the people living in certain communities, variously called “poor,” “disadvantaged,” “fragile,” or some other term, want a reduced police presence or even want to abolish the police altogether. As Bill noted earlier, this NYT op-ed by Mariame Kaba, identified as an “organizer,” called for exactly that.

Continue reading . . .

Supreme Court Turns Down Gun, Immunity, and Sanctuary Cases

by · Jun 15, 2020 7:04 am

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning issued its Monday orders list, announcing the cases it will and will not take. The big news is in the “will not” portion. A large number of closely watched cases were turned down. They include (1) calls to modify the qualified immunity doctrine, which protects police officers, among others, from lawsuits for doing their duty according to the law as they reasonably understand it at the time, even if a judge later disagrees or a court later reverses its precedents; (2) cases on the Second Amendment right to bear arms; and (3) the “sanctuary state” case of United States v. California.

Continue reading . . .

Supreme Court Affirms That “Jailhouse Lawyer” Law Means Just What It Says

by · Jun 8, 2020 8:13 am

Today in Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that a statute means exactly what it clearly says. One might well wonder why it is necessary to have the Supreme Court weigh in on such an obvious question, but two courts of appeals had decided it the other way. Justice Kagan’s opinion for the Court states the issue:

To help staunch a “flood of nonmeritorious” prisoner litigation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the three-strikes rule…. That rule generally prevents a prisoner from bringing suit in forma pauperis (IFP)—that is, without first paying the filing fee—if he has had three or more prior suits “dismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” … Today we address whether a suit dismissed for failure to state a claim counts as a strike when the dismissal was without prejudice.

Continue reading . . .