Author: Kent Scheidegger

Victim Restitution and the Ex Post Facto Clause

“Moving the goalposts” is widely recognized as an unfair thing to do. In criminal law, the issue rises to a constitutional one. From the beginning, the Constitution has forbidden both Congress and state legislatures from passing “ex post facto laws.”* The primary, and simple, effect of this prohibition is that a legislature cannot make an act criminal or increase the punishment for it after it has been committed, i.e., “after the fact,” in Latin.

Does a law that increases the length of time in which a restitution award may be collected constitute an ex post facto law? The U.S. Supreme Court today took up a case to decide that question, Ellingburg v. United States, No. 24-482.

There are two good arguments why the answer is no. Continue reading . . .

Death Penalty Sought for UnitedHealth Killer

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has decided to seek the death penalty for Luigi Mangione. The press release says:

“Luigi Mangione’s murder of Brian Thompson — an innocent man and father of two young children — was a premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America. After careful consideration, I have directed federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in this case as we carry out President Trump’s agenda to stop violent crime and Make America Safe Again.” Continue reading . . .

Bill on Nationwide Injunctions

The practice of individual federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions against particular government actions has long been the subject of complaints from both sides of the political aisle. At each point in time, of course, the side complaining is the side presently in power.

Senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has this op-ed in the WSJ regarding a bill he is introducing today to limit this practice, titled the Judicial Relief Clarification Act. As of this writing, today’s bills have not yet appeared on congress.gov, so I do not yet have the details.

Sen. Grassley notes that Justice Kagan has previously denounced such injunctions. A 2022 article in Politico by Josh Gerstein reported her remarks at a Northwestern University event: Continue reading . . .

USCA-DC Decision in Venezuelan Gang Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has split 2-1 in case of the deportation of Venezuelans alleged to be members of the extremely violent Tren de Aragua gang. The majority upheld the temporary restraining order issued by the District Court. The case is J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-5067.

The merits of the controversy aside, I believe the dissenting judge is correct on the threshold point. The D.C. federal courts have no jurisdiction here. This is, or should be, a habeas corpus case, and it must be brought in the district where the petitioners are confined, naming the head of that facility as the respondent. CJLF helped establish that rule 21 years ago, in Rumsfeld v. Padilla. Continue reading . . .

Domestic Murder Within Prison — Twice

One of the purposes of imprisonment is incapacitation. People who are locked up cannot commit crimes against people on the outside, except for the few able to commit crimes by proxy.

But crimes on the inside still happen. At Mule Creek State Prison, in Amador County in the California foothills, one death of an inmate’s wife during a family visit is being investigated as a homicide, and a second inmate has been charged with murdering his wife in a similar incident. The Ledger Dispatch in Jackson has this story. The inmate under investigation, David Brinson, has been sentenced to life without parole for four murders. And now there may be five. Continue reading . . .

Are State Courts Required to Accept a Confession of Error in a Capital Case?

Two years ago, in Escobar v. Texas, No. 21-1601, the Supreme Court issued a “grant, vacate, and remand” order directing the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider its denial of relief to a death-sentenced murderer ” in light of the confession of error by Texas,” i.e., by the Travis County District Attorney. Are state courts required to accept such confessions of error, however dubious?

In California, “progressive” district attorneys have made wholesale confessions of error in capital cases just because they disagree with the decision of the people to have capital punishment. Courts have mostly rolled over and gone along with these “take a dive” actions, although last week a Santa Clara County judge did draw the line at resentencing Richard Farley for seven murders. See NBC story here. Continue reading . . .

Kids, Gangs, and Prevention

We would all like to help dissuade kids from joining gangs, but how exactly do we do that? Joshua Crawford has this article in City Journal.

Governments have launched a wide array of prevention and intervention efforts to steer kids away from gang life. These programs try to dissuade youth from joining gangs or encourage them to leave. But the initiatives have had mixed results, and the ones that do work well often have limited access to at-risk kids.

To address the root problem, policymakers must understand why kids join gangs. Specifically, they need to recognize that the biggest driver of gang membership is violent crime. Consequently, the best way to stop teenagers from joining gangs is to provide them with safer neighborhoods. Continue reading . . .

Yes, Murder Is a Violent Offense

Last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case of Delligatti v. United States, I noted in this post the absurdity of the question. Today, the Court decided the case. Yes, murder is a “crime of violence” for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the Court, joined by six other Justices. So who are the other two? Continue reading . . .

Louisiana Nitrogen Execution

AP has this report by Sara Cline on Tuesday’s execution via nitrogen gas in Louisiana.

Jessie Hoffman Jr., 46, was pronounced dead at 6:50 p.m. at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, authorities said, adding the nitrogen gas had flowed for 19 minutes during what one official characterized as a “flawless” execution.

Witnesses to the execution said Hoffman appeared to involuntarily shake or had “some convulsive activity.” But the three witnesses who spoke — including two members of the media — agreed that, based on the protocol and what they learned about the execution method, nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Continue reading . . .