Issues

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) prohibits the filing of “second or successive” habeas petitions by state prisoners. Petitioner, Billy Joe Magwood (“Magwood”) and respondent, Warden Tony Patterson (“Patterson”), disagree as to whether Magwood, who received habeas relief from an earlier death sentence, may challenge a subsequent state issued death sentence for the same act. Magwood argues that a habeas petition challenging a new judgment for the first time cannot be “second or successive.” In response, Patterson asserts that Magwood had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the “fair warning claim” in the first habeas petition, and it would be an abuse of the writ and a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) to raise the same claim in this subsequent petition. The Eleventh Circuit sided with Patterson and held that Magwood’s claim is part of a “successive” petition under § 2244(b). The Supreme Court must now decide whether a petitioner, who already obtained federal relief from an earlier sentence, may challenge a resentence in a subsequent habeas petition if that petitioner could have challenged the first sentence on the same constitutional grounds now used to challenge the second sentence.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Thomas J. Gallagher, together with other owners and former owners of rental properties, sued the City of St. Paul, Minnesota for violating the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discriminatory housing practices. Gallagher claimed that the City’s aggressive and targeted enforcement of city housing codes against rental units reduced the availability of low-income rentals, with a disparate impact upon African-Americans. The Eighth Circuit held that Gallagher stated a valid FHA claim under the disparate impact theory. St. Paul appeals, arguing that, because the FHA requires evidence of discriminatory intent, Gallagher’s disparate impact claim is insufficient to establish a violation under the Act. Gallagher contends that, given the Court’s prior findings regarding disparate impact claims under the similarly-worded Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII, disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA. The Supreme Court’s decision may affect the extent to which city officials can use ordinances, code enforcement actions, and other land-use regulations to regulate low-income neighborhoods.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine whether the United States Government can constitutionally obtain a preliminary injunction under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 (“§ 1345”) to prohibit a defendant facing federal fraud charges from spending assets not derived directly from the charged crime. See Brief for Petitioner, Sila Luis at i. Luis argues that such a preliminary injunction violates a defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and that the language of § 1345 does not allow the Government to restrain spending of untainted assets. See id. at 17–18, 34–35. Luis also asserts that even if a preliminary injunction of untainted assets is constitutional, the district court violated Fifth Amendment Due Process by failing to determine whether the Government was entitled, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the untainted assets. See id. at 44. On the other hand, the United States argues that the Supreme Court has previously held the Government’s restraint of all assets in a defendant’s possession to be constitutional, so long as the Government can show probable cause that the assets are forfeitable even if the defendant needs those assets to pay for counsel. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 25–26. The Court’s decision could significantly impact criminal defendants’ ability to hire private counsel in cases of federal fraud and will also shape U.S. asset forfeiture law. See Brief of Amicus Curiae American Bar Association, in Support of Petitioner at 7; see also Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al., in Support of Petitioner at 5–6.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine whether the United States Government can constitutionally obtain a preliminary injunction under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 (“§ 1345”) to prohibit a defendant facing federal fraud charges from spending assets not derived directly from the charged crime. See Brief for Petitioner, Sila Luis at i. Luis argues that such a preliminary injunction violates a defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and that the language of § 1345 does not allow the Government to restrain spending of untainted assets. See id. at 17–18, 34–35. Luis also asserts that even if a preliminary injunction of untainted assets is constitutional, the district court violated Fifth Amendment Due Process by failing to determine whether the Government was entitled, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the untainted assets. See id. at 44. On the other hand, the United States argues that the Supreme Court has previously held the Government’s restraint of all assets in a defendant’s possession to be constitutional, so long as the Government can show probable cause that the assets are forfeitable even if the defendant needs those assets to pay for counsel. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 25–26. The Court’s decision could significantly impact criminal defendants’ ability to hire private counsel in cases of federal fraud and will also shape U.S. asset forfeiture law. See Brief of Amicus Curiae American Bar Association, in Support of Petitioner at 7; see also Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al., in Support of Petitioner at 5–6.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The City of Riviera Beach seized Fane Lozman’s houseboat after he did not comply with new city regulations. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s holding that the indefinitely moored houseboat was a “vessel” for purposes of maritime jurisdiction under 1 U.S.C. § 3. Lozman argues that courts should interpret “vessel” purposively and that his houseboat was not a vessel because its purpose was not to transport people or goods. The City of Riviera Beach counters that the definition of “vessel” requires a capability test that asks merely if the structure is capable of transporting people or goods. Additionally, both parties and the U.S. Solicitor General argue the subsequent purchase and destruction of Lozman’s houseboat by the City of Riviera Beach does not render the case moot because of a $25,000 security bond that the City posted. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case may reshape the role of state and federal courts in some maritime matters. The decision could also expand current maritime legislation to apply to structures such as casino boats or floating homes, or remove federal legislative protections for maritime lenders.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

In 2001, Craig and Wendy Humphries were arrested on child abuse charges and listed in California's Child Abuse Central Index ("CACI"), which is organized under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act ("CANRA"). All charges against the Humphrieses were dismissed, and the Humphrieses obtained an order declaring them factually innocent. However, the Humphrieses were unable to contest their listing in the CACI. The Humphrieses sued Los Angeles County pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory relief establishing that CANRA and policies related to the CACI are unconstitutional because of the lack of procedures to challenge an individual's inclusion based on a substantiated claim. Los Angeles County argued that as a local government it had no control over CACI procedures because the state government created these policies. The Ninth Circuit sided with the Humphrieses and held that Los Angeles County's liability should be determined according the requirements established in Monell v. Department of Social Services. The Supreme Court must now decide whether claims for declaratory relief against a public entity are subject to the requirements of Monell.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Between 2002 and 2008, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District repeatedly detected impermissible levels of water pollution in its stormwater channeling system, the MS4, which collects and transports stormwater runoff through rivers flowing to the Pacific Ocean. The levels were impermissible because they exceeded the pollution amounts allowed to the District through a state-issued permit pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. The Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper commenced an action, seeking to impose liability on the District for its permit violations in four rivers. The District argues that this case is resolved by the Court’s earlier decision that transferring water within a single water body does not add anything. Its opponents argue that the earlier decision does not apply because the District’s permit establishes that the District discharges pollutants. The Supreme Court’s holding will determine what kinds of precautions a municipality must take to design water treatment systems that comply with the permit system of the Clean Water Act. This decision will impact the way that state and local government agencies plan to reduce pollution and allocate their risks and resources.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Both Jose Antonio Lopez and Reymundo Toledo-Flores are permanent residents of the United States who were convicted of drug crimes that are felonies at the state level but misdemeanors under federal law. The government argues that both Lopez’s and Toledo-Flores’s crimes qualify as “aggravated felonies.” If that is the case, Lopez will be barred from seeking a waiver of the deportation order issued against him while Toledo-Flores will be subject to a stricter sentence under the mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Lopez and Toledo-Flores argue that their drug crimes do not meet the definition of an aggravated felony because they are not felonies under federal law. Thus, the Court must decide whether drug offenses that are state felonies but federal misdemeanors satisfy the federal statutory definition of aggravated felony.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The Fair Labor Standards Act sets the minimum wage and other mandatory benefits for workers. Homecare workers such as babysitters and companions to the elderly are exempt from its provisions when employed directly for the family they work for, but what about when they are employed by a third party provider of such services? After following a notice-and-comment rulemaking procedure the Department of Labor said, in 29 C.F.R. § 552.109(a) under the heading “interpretations,” that such third-party employed workers are exempt from the minimum wage requirement. Coke, a homecare worker employed by third-party provider Long Island Care at Home, brought suit questioning the validity of § 109(a). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held the regulation was unenforceable. The United States Supreme Court now takes up the question of whether the Second Circuit gave the proper amount of deference to the Department of Labor’s stance on the regulation in question.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

James Logan, a citizen of Wisconsin with a prior felony drug conviction, was convicted of felony firearm possession after his girlfriend led the police to find a gun in his glove compartment. Under state law, Logan should have been sentenced to a maximum of ten years. The federal district court sentenced him to fifteen years. The United States claimed that Logan fell under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), which mandates an enhanced penalty for a gun-carrying felon who has three prior violent felony convictions. Logan had three prior misdemeanor battery convictions, all of which counted as "violent felonies" under the ACCA because they were each punishable by more than two years' imprisonment.

Logan's prior misdemeanor battery convictions did not result in the loss of his civil rights. Logan therefore argued that these convictions should not count under the ACCA, which exempts a prior conviction if that conviction has had "civil rights restored." The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, however, affirmed the district court's decision. Noting that there was no legislative history for the meaning of "restored," the appellate court interpreted "restored" to mean to give back something that had been taken away, and determined that rights that had never been lost could not be restored. Logan now appeals, arguing that "restored" should be interpreted broadly to avoid sentencing disparities and a result that Congress did not intend. At issue before the Supreme Court is whether convictions where rights were never taken away should be treated the same as convictions where rights were lost and then later regained. The Court's decision will resolve the current circuit split, as well as provide more insight into the continuing debate over mandatory sentencing schemes and the interpretation of federal sentencing laws.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources