by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 28, 2024 11:47 am
No one was surprised when the rioters who broke into the Capitol on January 6, 2021 were charged with crimes. A lot of people were surprised when they were charged with violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a law mostly about financial matters enacted in the wake of the Enron fiasco. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court disapproved the creatively broad reading of the law behind these prosecutions in Fischer v. United States. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 28, 2024 10:48 am
Homelessness is a major problem, and it is a complex one. People become homeless for different reasons, and they have different obstacles to returning to the ability of obtaining their own shelter. Two of the most common are mental illness and addiction. These two problems are particularly difficult, as the conditions themselves may block the person’s willingness to accept and participate in the treatment needed to fix the problem. Sometimes an arrest is exactly what a person needs to provide the needed motivation. Fifty-six years ago, Justice Thurgood Marshall recognized similar considerations when he wrote the plurality opinion in Powell v. Texas. That opinion rejected the notion that the Eighth Amendment prohibited punishing an alcoholic for being drunk in public because the conduct was an involuntary result of his status. Such a constitutional mandate was too simplistic a way of dealing with a complex and difficult social problem.
Even so, the Ninth Circuit took the step that the Powell plurality rejected with regard to laws penalizing camping on public property as applied to the homeless. Today, the Supreme Court reversed that decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the Court. Three Justices dissented. CJLF filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the city.
A key legal issue in the case involved the status and reach of an even earlier case, Robinson v. California. In that case, the Court declared a California statute unconstitutional because it made criminal the status of being addicted to drugs as opposed to the act of possessing or using an illegal drug. Oddly, the Court invoked the Eighth Amendment for this proposition, an argument only briefly mentioned by Robinson, rather than the Due Process Clause, which was Robinson’s main argument. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 26, 2024 7:27 am
The U.S. Supreme Court issued one criminal law decision today, Snyder v. United States, No. 23-108. The Court gave a narrow construction to a federal bribery statute regarding state and local officials, distinguishing bribes from “gratuities.” In 18 U.S.C. § 201, which applies to federal officials, Congress expressly made that distinction. Subdivision (b) applies to bribes paid to induce an official act, while subdivision (c) applies to gratuities paid after the fact as a reward for an official act. This case involves 18 U.S.C. § 666, which applies to state and local officials. The Court held that § 666, as narrowed by a subsequent amendment, is more like § 201(b) and applies only to bribes, not gratuities.
In other action, the Court took a narrow view of standing and tossed out a suit challenging government-induced censorship in social media. The case is Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411.
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 21, 2024 1:53 pm
Today the Supreme Court decided the latest installment in the continuing saga of jury trial on sentence-determining facts. The case is Erlinger v. United States, No. 23-370.
The Armed Career Criminal Act provides for an enhanced sentence for violators with three prior violent felony convictions of crimes “committed on occasions different from one another.” So who decides if the occasions are different? No one who has followed the Apprendi line of cases will be surprised to learn that the Court held that the right of jury trial extends to this determination.
On the facts of the case, the “different occasions” element is so obvious that a jury would be able to decide it without even sitting down, yet the case goes back to convene a jury for this purpose, unless this can be considered a “harmless error.” Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 21, 2024 11:17 am
Federal law prohibits persons who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. (See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).) Today, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to this law, 8-1. Only Justice Thomas dissented.
A key issue is how closely a gun-control law must track those in existence at the Founding to be considered consistent with the Second Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts, writing the opinion of the Court, states that the historical analyses of recent cases “were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” Just as the protection of the amendment is not limited to the muskets of 1791, neither are the permissible regulations limited to duplicates of those in force at the time. This touches off an extensive discussion of originalism. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 21, 2024 8:00 am
Today the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its opinion in the crime lab testimony case, Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899. Regrettably, the most important issue remains unanswered. Attorneys and lower courts still do not know if the lab notes taken by the analyst who performed the tests and related as the basis of an expert opinion by a different forensic scientist are “testimonial” so as to make the first analyst a “witness” whom the defendant has a constitutional right to confront. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 20, 2024 4:22 pm
Given today’s decisions, described in earlier posts, what is left for the Supreme Court to decide in the next couple of weeks before it adjourns? We have cases on homeless encampments, testimony regarding forensic lab results, firearms and domestic violence restraining orders, a political hot potato, and more. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 20, 2024 10:59 am
In Chiaverini v. City of Napolean, No. 23-50, the opinion of the Court, by Justice Kagan, discusses the requirements for a “Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim.” Justices Thomas and Gorsuch deny there is any such thing. The Fourth Amendment deals with seizures, not prosecutions, and the constitutional tort is the arrest and detention, not the prosecution. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 20, 2024 10:34 am
The U.S. Supreme Court today reinstated a retaliatory arrest case, Gonzales v. Trevino, No. 22-1025. The Court held that where the plaintiff concedes there was probable cause for an arrest but claims others are not arrested for the same conduct, the Fifth Circuit applied an excessively severe requirement on what the plaintiff must show. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 20, 2024 10:21 am
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 704, can an expert testify as to what “most people” would know in a given situation? Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Diaz v. United States, No. 23-14. The decision was 6-3, but no, not on “party” lines. Continue reading . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED