Congress

Descamps v. United States

Issues

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit can find a missing element to be satisfied by using a modified categorical approach.
2. Whether imposition of the Armed Career Criminal Act should require a separate indictment and trial.
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s application of the modified categorical approach was a deviation from Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005).

 

Matthew Descamps was sentenced to 262 months in prison after the Ninth Circuit found that he had committed his third violent felony, in violation of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The contested violent felony was a 1978 conviction for burglary of a California grocery store. Under the California burglary statute, one can be convicted of burglary without an explicit finding that entry into the burgled premises was itself unlawful.  The element of unlawful entry is required under the generic burglary statute described in the ACCA. The Ninth Circuit found the “unlawful entry” element to be necessarily satisfied by the plea bargain agreed to by Descamps, thus subjecting him to the mandatory fifteen-year minimum prison sentence required under the ACCA. How the Supreme Court decides this case will determine how sentencing courts use factual assertions surrounding a prior conviction in situations where a violent crime as defined under the ACCA contains elements absent from the crime for which the defendant was convicted.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Aguila-Montes De Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2011), (En Banc) that a state conviction for burglary where the statute is missing an element of the generic crime, may be subject to the modified categorical approach, even though most other Circuit Courts of Appeal would not allow it.

2. Whether is it time for this Court to overrule Almandez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), apply Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 224 (2000), and require an Indictment and trial on the issue of application of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

3. Whether the Ninth Circuit's ruling in the instant case was in derogation of the requirements in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005).

Petitioner Matthew Descamps was arrested on March 25, 2005 in Stevens County, Washington. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 2–3. Officers from the Stevens County Sheriff’s Department responded after receiving an emergency call that a handgun had been fired. See 

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

media

Media Law: Overview 

Media law refers to the regulations of mass media production and use. It includes various types of media forms such as broadcast television, radio, film, internet, and print; however, broadcast media is the most heavily regulated.

nondelegation doctrine

Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson

Issues

Does a member of Congress have immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause against a an employment suit brought under the Congressional Accountability Act by a member of his former congressional staff and can such a dispute be appealed directly to the Supreme Court from a circuit court and heard even after the member of Congress has left office?

 

After a leave of absence, necessitated by health problems, from his position as a State Office Manager for Senator Dayton Brad Hanson was fired. He subsequently sued his former employer for discrimination on the basis of a disability and for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Congressional Accountability Act. Dayton argued, and continues to argue before the Supreme Court, that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution grants him immunity from this action and therefore the suit must be dismissed. This case will turn on the issue of whether an administrative or personnel decision, such as firing an employee, is a legislative act within the meaning of the Clause. To reach that issue, however, the Court will first have to decide whether the CAA entitles Dayton to take a direct appeal from a court of appeals to the Supreme Court, rather than file for a writ of certiorari, and also whether the case has been rendered moot since one party to the action – the Office of Senator Mark Dayton – ceased to exist when Dayton’s term expired.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution bar federal court jurisdiction of an action brought under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1438 (2000), by a congressional employee whose job duties are part of the due functioning of the legislative process?

The Court directed the parties to brief the following additional questions:

Was the Office of Senator Mark Dayton entitled to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directly to this Court?

Was this a case rendered moot by the expiration of the term of office of Senator Dayton?

Brad Hanson worked as a State Office Manager for Senator Dayton, a former Senator for the state of Minnesota. Brief for Appellant at 5. Hanson’s primary duties included setting up the Senator’s local Minnesota offices and overseeing the Health Care Help Line, a service to constituents experiencing problems with their health insurance carrier. Hanson v. Office of Senator Mark Dayton, 459 F.3d 1, 6 (C.A.D.C. 2006).

Submit for publication
0

political question doctrine

Overview

Political Question doctrine is the rule that Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find that it presents a political question. This doctrine refers to the idea that an issue is so politically charged that federal courts, which are typically viewed as the apolitical branch of government, should not hear the issue.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

Issues

Can a congressional committee subpoena the records of the President of the United States, when those records are unprivileged and held by a third party?

The Supreme Court will determine whether a congressional committee may subpoena a third-party for the financial records of the President of the United States. The United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Second Circuit have both held that congressional committees did not exceed their constitutional authority when they issued subpoenas to President Donald Trump’s accountant and several banks for his personal financial records, because those subpoenas were related to legitimate legislative purposes. Petitioner President Trump argues that Congress may not issue subpoenas for the documents of a sitting President under the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Respondents, three Committees of the House of Representatives, argue that Congress has long exercised investigative power over the President as part of its legislative function. This case will likely affect the number and scope of future congressional subpoenas for a President’s personal records.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the President.

On May 16, 2018, the Acting Director of the Office of Government Ethics alerted the Deputy Attorney General to a discrepancy in one of the financial disclosure reports President Trump filed according to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Trump v.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Congress