Fourteenth Amendment

Allen v. Cooper

Issues

Did Congress have the power under Article I of the Constitution or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, which abrogated State’s sovereign immunity from violating federal copyright law?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Congress has the power to revoke States’ sovereign immunity from federal copyright infringement under the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (“CRCA”). Frederick Allen, a videographer, and his video production company argue that the CRCA is a valid exercise of Congress’s enforcement power under the Intellectual Property Clause (“Clause”) of the Constitution. Allen and his company also argue that the CRCA is valid because it enforces his due process rights under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roy Cooper, the governor of North Carolina, argues that the CRCA is unconstitutional and that Congress’s Section 5 power to abrogate state sovereign immunity does not apply in this case. The outcome of this case has important implications for copyright holders and copyright enforcement, as well as for determining the extent of Congress’ power to abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act in providing remedies for authors of original expression whose federal copyrights are infringed by states.

The Queen Anne’s Revenge is a former French merchant vessel that was captured by the pirate Edward Teach, more commonly known as Blackbeard, in 1717. Allen v. Cooper at 343. Teach abandoned the Revenge in 1718 when it ran aground off the coast of Beaufort, North Carolina.  Id.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Babcock v. Kijakazi

Issues

Under the Social Security Act’s Windfall Elimination Provision, does the uniform-services exemption apply to Civil Service Retirement System payments derived from service as a dual-status technician?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the uniformed services exemption under the Social Security Act applies to the Civil Service Retirement System pensions of dual-status technicians. Petitioner David Babcock argues that the entirety of his service as a dual-status technician was as a uniformed member of the National Guard and he thus should entirely fall under the exemption. The Social Security Administration, under Acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi, argues that the portion of Babcock’s service as a dual-status technician that was compensated by the Civil Service Retirement System pension was performed in his capacity as a civilian employee and therefore it should not fall under the exemption. The outcome of this case will impact the benefits available to dual-status technicians and clarify the distinction between dual-status technicians and other military personnel.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a civil service pension received for federal civilian employment as a “militarytechnician (dual status)” is “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” for the purposes of the Social Security Act’s windfall elimination provision.

From 1975 to 2014, Petitioner David Babcock (“Babcock”) was employed as a National Guard dual-status technician. Babcock v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. at 1–2. A dual-status technician, under 10 U.S.C. § 10216(a)(1) and 32 U.S.C.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Jed Stiglitz for his guidance and insights

into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Betterman v. Montana

Issues

Does the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause apply to the sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution?

Court below

 

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the delay between a criminal defendant’s guilty plea and sentencing violates the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Betterman argues that the fundamental nature of the Speedy Trial Clause, as well as the Supreme Court’s precedent, supports applying the clause to delays in a defendant’s sentencing. Montana counters that the Speedy Trial Clause was never intended to apply to sentencing and that the Supreme Court’s precedent supports this position. The outcome of this case could affect the ability of convicted defendants to mount an adequate defense at sentencing.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause apply to the sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution, protecting a criminal defendant from inordinate delay in the final disposition of his case?

In December of 2011, petitioner Brandon Thomas Betterman failed to comply with two court orders to appear pursuant to charges of felony domestic assault. See State v. Betterman, 342 P.3d 971, 973 (Mont.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Brown v. Davenport

Issues

May a federal court grant a defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus upon finding a trial error had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the defendant; or, must the court also determine that the state court’s interpretation of Chapman v. California was unreasonable under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?

This case asks the Supreme Court to resolve a difference in judicial opinion among several federal courts of appeal regarding which standard is appropriate for granting federal habeas relief. Petitioner Ervine Lee Davenport (“Davenport”) contends that the approach taken by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Brecht v. Abrahamson, which requires that a defendant experience a “substantial and injurious effect” due to a trial error, is satisfactory. Respondent Mike Brown (“Brown”), Acting Warden, argues that the standard invoked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits in Chapman v. California should instead apply. For a federal court to grant relief under Chapman v. California, a trial error must not be “harmless,” and the state court’s interpretation of Chapman v. California must be “unreasonable” under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). The outcome of this case will affect how much deference federal courts give to state courts’ interpretations of AEDPA, as well as the ability of defendants to successfully obtain relief in federal habeas proceedings. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a federal habeas court may grant relief based solely on its conclusion that the test from Brecht v. Abrahamson is satisfied, or whether the court must also find that the state court’s application of Chapman v. California was unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). 

On January 13, 2007, Ervine Lee Davenport and Annette White were drinking alcohol and using cocaine at a friend’s house when White began acting belligerently. Davenport v. MacLaren at 2.  Several of White’s friends asked her to leave, and Davenport offered to drive White home. Id. Davenport testified that during the drive, White grabbed the steering wheel and sliced his arm with a box cutter. Id.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Keir Weyble for his guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Burton v. Waddington

Issues

The Supreme Court in Blakely ruled that mandatory state sentencing guidelines are the statutory maximum for purposes of applying the Apprendi rule, which prohibits judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts other than those decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Is the holding in Blakely a new rule that cannot be applied retroactively, or is it instead dictated by the earlier holding in Apprendi?

 

A jury convicted Petitioner Lonnie Lee Burton of rape, robbery, and burglary. After initially choosing to run Burton’s robbery and burglary convictions concurrent with his rape conviction, the sentencing judge on remand imposed the same 562-month aggregate sentence but ran the three convictions consecutive to each other after finding that Burton’s earlier sentence was too lenient. As a result, Burton’s sentence was 258 months above the 304 month ceiling of the statutory sentencing range. Burton contends that the sentencing court acted in violation of Blakely v. Washington. Burton further contends that the rule from Blakely, decided after his sentence became final, is not a new rule, but rather a rule dictated by the earlier case Apprendi v. New Jersey. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the holding in Blakely is a new rule or is in fact dictated by Apprendi. If Blakely is a new rule, the Court will decide whether it applies retroactively. A decision for either side has the potential to change the amount of discretion that judges exercise when sentencing defendants.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Petitioner was given an exceptional sentence of 258 months above the 304 month ceiling of the statutory sentencing range, a sentence that became final after Apprendi v. New Jersey, but before Blakely v. Washington:

  1. Is the holding in Blakely a new rule or is it dictated by Apprendi?
  2. If Blakely is a new rule, does its requirement that facts resulting in an enhanced statutory maximum be proved beyond a reasonable doubt apply retroactively?

On October 18, 1991, Petitioner Lonnie Lee Burton followed a 15-year-old Washington boy home from school. State v. Burton, 2000 WL 987045 (Wash.App. Div. July 17, 2000) at 1.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., et al.

Issues

Must a judge recuse himself in a case where a substantial campaign contributor is a party?

 

The judge, aloof in his black robes, sits as the incarnation of the nation's courts and of the ideals those courts are meant to embody: impartiality, fairness, and, above all, justice.  However, judges are also human and liable to err; as such, they are themselves judged by those involved in or reporting on legal proceedings. Consequently, the avoidance of bias, apparent or otherwise, has been a matter of concern for those regulating the courts-chiefly the judges themselves. While a judge may well be able to administer justice even when a personal bias exists, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges and tribunals to avoid even the mere appearance of bias. This case concerns an elected justice-that is, a judge sitting on the highest court of a state judicial system-who remained at the bench to administer a case involving a company whose CEO had contributed substantially to that justice's election campaign. Petitioner Hugh M. Caperton argues that this individual, Justice Brent Benjamin, ought to have recused himself and not administered the trial because of the appearance of bias, especially as he was the deciding figure in this case. Conversely, Respondent Massey Coal Co. contends that Justice Benjamin was in compliance with due process and that he stood to gain nothing from the outcome of the trial. This case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity to set the standards by which judges will be required to recuse themselves from cases involving apparent bias.

 

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Justice Brent Benjamin of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia refused to recuse himself from the appeal of the $50 million jury verdict in this case, even though the CEO of the lead defendant spent $3 million supporting his campaign for a seat on the court--more than 60% of the total amount spent to support Justice Benjamin's campaign-- while preparing to appeal the verdict against his company. After winning election to the court, Justice Benjamin cast the deciding vote in the court's 3-2 decision overturning that verdict. The question presented is whether Justice Benjamin's failure to recuse himself from participation in his principal financial supporter's case violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    In 1998 the Petitioners, Hugh M. Caperton, Harman Development Corporation, Harman Mining Corporation, and Sovereign Coal Sales, Inc. sued Respondent A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc. and several affiliated companies to recover damages in the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia. See Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., No. 33350, 2008 WL918444 at *4 (W. Va.

    Written by

    Edited by

    Submit for publication
    0

    civil procedure

    civil rights

    Clark v. Arizona

    Issues

    Whether Arizona's insanity law, as set forth in A.R.S. § 13-502 (1996) and applied in this case, violated Petitioner's right to due process under the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?

    Whether Arizona's blanket exclusion of evidence and refusal to consider mental disease or defect to rebut the state's evidence on the element of mens rea violated Petitioner's right to due process under the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?

     

     

    On June 21, 2000, 17-year-old Eric Clark shot and killed Flagstaff, Arizona Police Officer Jeffrey Moritz. Brief for Petitioner at 2. At the time, Clark had been suffering from delusions and hallucinations and had been diagnosed as suffering schizophrenia and psychosis. Id. At trial, he attempted to present evidence of his mental illness in order to negate the mens rea knowledge and intent elements of first degree murder. The government, however, argued successfully that under Arizona's definition of insanity (A.R.S. § 13-502(A)) and State v. Mott, evidence of Clark's mental illness was impermissible to negate the mens rea of the crime. Clark was subsequently convicted of first degree murder. He appeals the conviction, arguing that preventing him from using evidence of his mental disease to negate the mens rea of the crime violates his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Whether Arizona's insanity law, as set forth in A.R.S. § 13-502 (1996) and applied in this case, violated Petitioner's right to due process under the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?

    Whether Arizona's blanket exclusion of evidence and refusal to consider mental disease or defect to rebut the state's evidence on the element of mens rea violated Petitioner's right to due process under the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?

     

    In the early morning on June 21, 2000, in Flagstaff, Arizona, 17-year-old Eric Clark borrowed the keys to his brother's truck while his brother was sleeping.

    Additional Resources

    Submit for publication
    0

    Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals

    Issues

    Does the FMLA’s self-care provision abrogate states’ sovereign immunity from suits for damages?

     

    After respondent Maryland Court of Appeals denied petitioner Daniel Coleman’s request for medical leave and terminated his employment, Coleman filed this suit against the State of Maryland under the self-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), which provides that “an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period . . . [b]ecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position,” 29 U. S. C. §2612(a)(1) (D). Coleman argues that the Act’s medical leave provisions should be considered as a unified effort against gender discrimination that permits state employees to sue state employers under the self-care provision, and that the purpose of preventing gender discrimination abrogates state immunity. The state responds that the FMLA’s provisions address discrete forms of discrimination that should be examined individually and that the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity bars lawsuits against a state employer under the self-care provision. By deciding whether a state employee has legal recourse for a violation of the self-care provision, this case will clarify the scope of state exposure to employment lawsuits seeking money damages under the FMLA.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    In passing the FMLA, as the Court recognized in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U. S. 701, Congress intended to eliminate gender discrimination in the granting of sick leave. The legislative record supports its purpose and findings. The question presented for review is:

    Whether Congress constitutionally abrogated states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it passed the FMLA’s self-care leave provision.

    From March 2001 through August 2007, Coleman worked at the Maryland Court of Appeals. See Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 189 (4th Cir.

    Written by

    Edited by

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to thank former Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions Frank Wagner for his assistance in editing this preview.

    Additional Resources

    Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson: On Floors, Ceilings, Federalism and Constitutional Law Exams: West Virginia Weekend (Apr. 9, 2011)

    National Organization for Women: The Provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (Feb. 5, 2007)

    Stanford Law Review, Reva B. Siegel, You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby: Rehnquist’s New Approach to Pregnancy Discrimination in Hibbs, (Apr. 2006)

    Submit for publication
    0
    Subscribe to Fourteenth Amendment