Category: Civil Suits

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 . . .

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 . . .

Supreme Court Nixes Nationwide Injunctions

by · Jun 27, 2025 8:09 am

The Supreme Court held today that the statute that grants federal courts authority in “suits in equity” does not empower a court to issue an injunction against enforcement of a statute or executive order that applies nationwide, as opposed to one that only protects the plaintiffs in the case.

The high court based its opinion on the statute only, not Article III of the Constitution as the government had requested. That means that Congress can still enact a new statute spelling out when, if ever, nationwide injunctions can be ordered. Bills are pending in Congress, as I noted in this post. Congress should proceed with that effort. Sometimes such injunctions are needed, but swift review must be provided so that a single judge does not halt enforcement on a dubious theory, especially where the same theory has been rejected by other district judges.

Continue reading . . .

Revoking Federal Supervised Release

by · Jun 20, 2025 9:10 am

There is no parole, as such, in the federal sentencing system, but a sentence can include a period of “supervised release” following the term of incarceration. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), when imposing the original sentence, a federal judge can consider, among other factors, “the need for the sentence imposed” “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.” Can the judge consider that factor when deciding on a revocation of supervised release?

No, the Supreme Court decided today in Esteras v. United States, No. 23-7483. Why not? The simple answer is because Congress said so. The statute on supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c), specifies the factors. Many of the factors used to set the initial sentence are included, but that one is conspicuously absent.

So why is there any difficulty at all? Continue reading . . .

Ninth Circuit Stays Injunction Against Cal. Guard Federalization

by · Jun 20, 2025 7:31 am

In previous posts, I discussed California Governor Gavin Newsom’s suit against President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard to deal with the Los Angeles riots, the district court’s temporary restraining order, and the court of appeals’s immediate short-term administrative stay.

Yesterday, despite being a federal holiday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s TRO for the duration of the appeal. In circumstances such as this, the stay pending appeal may be the whole ball game. If order is restored and the federalization rescinded before the actual decision of the appeal, the appeal may very well be dismissed as moot.

The panel was not too worried about the point that I considered the weakest element of the President’s case, the requirement of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 that the orders be issued through the state governor.

Continue reading . . .

Prison Litigation, Administrative Remedies, and Jury Trial

by · Jun 18, 2025 8:41 am

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down five opinions in civil cases this morning. One of them is a law-enforcement-related civil case, a category we keep tabs on at CJLF.

In 1995, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to cut down on the amount of federal court litigation involving prisoners. One requirement of the law, a common one in cases involving government agencies, is that a prisoner must first try any administrative remedies available in the prison system before turning to the courts. The Supreme Court has previously decided that a remedy is not “available” for this purpose if it is unavailable in practice, even if it exists on the books.

So, if a prison guard accused of misconduct blocks the prisoner from the grievance process by destroying his papers, the process would be unavailable, and the prisoner can proceed to federal court. But if that blocking is disputed, who decides if it really happened, the federal judge or a jury? That was the question in Perttu v. Richards, decided today. Continue reading . . .

Amending the Complaint After Losing the Case

by · Jun 5, 2025 9:11 am

The U.S. Supreme Court has two cases on its docket this year addressing attempts to amend a complaint or petition after the case has already been decided in the trial court and gone to the court of appeals. BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, decided today, is a regular civil case.  Rivers v. Guerrero is a habeas corpus case, in which CJLF has filed an amicus brief.

Today’s decision in BLOM Bank looks very good for the prospect of success in Rivers. It is in line with the approach of our Rivers brief . Continue reading . . .

Bill on Nationwide Injunctions

by · Mar 31, 2025 10:04 am

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 . . .