United States v. Ali Danial Hemani

Issues

Does the Second Amendment prohibit a ban on the possession of firearms by all “unlawful users” of any drug?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a federal statute that prohibits any “unlawful user” of drugs from possessing firearms, even when not presently intoxicated, provides sufficient notice of the conduct it prohibits and comports with the Second Amendment. The United States argues that the statute comes from a long history of regulations which prohibit dangerous persons from possessing firearms. Ali Danial Hemani counters that the categorical ban goes much further than any historical law. This case presents public safety, gun rights, and government efficiency issues. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

In 1968, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which, among other provisions, restricted certain categories of persons from possessing firearms. Pub. L. No.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC

Issues

Does federal statute 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), which broadly preempts state laws related to the prices, routes, and services of motor carriers and freight brokers, bar state common law-claims that hold brokers liable for negligently selecting motor carriers or drivers?

This case asks whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s (“FAAAA”) preemption provision, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), bars state common-law negligence claims against freight brokers for negligent selection of a motor carrier or driver. The Petitioner, Shawn Montgomery, seeks to bring a state law tort claim against a broker for hiring an unsafe driver who severely injured him. Montgomery argues that the claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception for preemption because it reflects the State’s exercise of its safety regulatory authority over motor vehicle safety. The Respondents, including the motor carrier, the driver, and the freight broker, respond that the FAAAA preempts these claims because brokers do not own or operate the vehicles and therefore fall outside the scope of state safety regulation. The Court’s decision will clarify the scope of federal preemption over state tort law in the motor vehicle industry. The outcome of this case will impact the allocation of responsibility among brokers and, carriers, and will bring clarity to state and federal transportation liability law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.

Petitioner Shawn Montgomery was severely injured after a tractor-trailer left the road and struck Montgomery’s stopped vehicle “on the shoulder of an Illinois highway.” Montgomery v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Hunter v. United States

Issues

Are claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or claims that a sentence is above the statutory maximum the only two permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver? Does an appeal waiver still apply if the sentencing judge tells the defendant that they can appeal their sentence and the government does not object?

In this case, the Court will determine whether petitioner Hunter, a criminal defendant, may appeal his sentence, despite agreeing to waive his right to appeal when he entered a plea agreement with the United States government. The lower court determined that Hunter’s waiver prevented his appeal, even though he argues his sentence is unconstitutional. Hunter asserts that because plea agreements are like contracts, the Court should recognize that doctrines which make a contract invalid can also make a plea agreement’s appeal waiver invalid. Additionally, Hunter separately claims that the District Court’s statement during sentencing, which informed him that he retained the right to appeal, should invalidate his appeal waiver because the government did not object. The government argues that applying contract defenses to appeal waivers is not supported by the law, and that none of Hunter’s stated contract doctrines apply in this case. The government also maintains that there is no legal basis for the District Court’s statement to modify the appeal waiver, and that the District Court’s statement pertained to other appealable claims that Hunter did not raise. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the rights of criminal defendants, their leverage during plea negotiations, and the availability of appeals.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.

The Petitioner, Munson P.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Case of Nullity of Dismissals of Pregnant Women, Sentencia Definitiva No. 113 (2023)

In Final Judgment No. 113 (2023), the plaintiff was suddenly and unexpectedly fired from her job at the Paraguayan oil company, Petropar - Petroleos Paraguayos, while pregnant. The plaintiff sued her former employer for lost wages and for her reinstatement to her prior position. The defendant argued that, because the plaintiff was hired for a fixed term, meaning her employment was contractually set to end on a specified date, and had miscarried after being fired, she was not eligible for protections under Paraguayan employment and anti-discrimination laws.

Case of Criminal Abortion Proceedings, Auto Interlocutorio No. 554 (2025)

Interlocutory Order No. 554 (2025), the defendant was subject to criminal proceedings due to having undergone an abortion, after she was admitted to the emergency room for complications related to a suspected abortion. The Public Ministry requested suspension of criminal proceedings against the defendant, as permitted under Article 21 of Paraguay’s Penal Code, which states that a person who has not reached fourteen years of age is exempt from criminal liability.

Case of Wrongful Termination, Acuerdo y Sentencia No. 109 (2017)

In Agreement and Judgment No. 109 (2017), the plaintiff sued for wrongful termination, claiming that she had been fired from her job as a result of her pregnancy. The plaintiff requested that her termination be revoked and that she be compensated for lost wages, both of which the court granted. The court also ruled that pregnant people cannot be fired from their jobs, even if the employer is not aware of the pregnancy, unless the pregnant person materially violates or fails to fulfill their job obligations.

Ley No. 6453 (2019) que modifica y amplía la Ley No. 5508/2015 promoción, protección de la maternidad y apoyo a la lactancia materna

Law No. 6453 amends and expands the scope of Law No. 5508 on the promotion, protection of maternity and support for breastfeeding. Under this law, employers with more than 10 female employees are required to provide breastfeeding rooms that satisfy the requirements established by the Ministry of Public Health and Wellbeing.

Ley No. 7128 (2023) que aprueba el acuerdo entre la República del Paraguay y el Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia para fortalecer la lucha contra la trata de personas y delitos conexos

Law No. 7128 (2023) approving the agreement between the Republic of Paraguay and the Plurinational State of Bolivia to strengthen the fight against trafficking in persons and related crimes, approves the bilateral agreement between Paraguay and Bolivia to cooperate in the prevention of human trafficking. The agreement provides that both countries will cooperate in formulating policies and programs to prevent human trafficking and related crimes, which includes coordinating with international and non-profit organizations and the private sector.

Ley No. 5422 (2015) que modifica los artículos 4, 5, 6, 7 y 13 de la Ley No. 45/1991 que establece el divorcio vincular del matrimonio

Law No. 5422 (2015) amending Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 13 of Law No. 45/1991 establishing the binding divorce of marriage, is the most recent legislation on divorce in Paraguay. This law expands upon the enumerated causes for divorce in Article 4 of Law No. 45. The most notable addition to the list is recognition that the commission of any criminal act against one’s spouse or children is a cause for divorce. This law also removes the requirement established in Law No.

Subscribe to