Holland v. Florida

Issues

1. Does equitable tolling apply to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas petitioners?

2. If so, does “gross negligence” of the habeas petitioner’s counsel fall under the “extraordinary circumstances” prerequisite to equitable tolling?

 

Albert Holland, a death row inmate, twice wrote letters to his attorney to inquire as to the status of his federal habeas petition. His attorney failed to reply to either letter. Holland eventually filed a pro se federal habeas petition in federal district court. However, with the delay in filing, the district court denied the habeas petition as untimely. After gaining new counsel, Holland argued that his attorney’s “egregious conduct” constituted “extraordinary circumstances” so as to trigger equitable tolling of the petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, even though  representation  of Holland was “grossly negligent,” only an attorney’s “bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment, or so forth” could be considered “extraordinary circumstances. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether “gross negligence” by an attorney constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” under the equitable tolling doctrine. The  decision in this case  will implicate the courts’ ability to timely resolve criminal cases and criminal defendants’ ability to file habeas petitions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

In determining that Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling to excuse the late filing of his habeas petition, the Eleventh Circuit determined that the reason for the late filing was the “gross negligence” on part of Petitioner’s state-appointed collateral attorney’s failure to file the petition in a timely fashion despite repeated instructions from the Petitioner to do so. However, under the new test announced by the Eleventh Circuit in Petitioner’s case, no allegation of attorney negligence or failure to meet a lawyer’s standard of care, in the absence of bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, or mental impairment, could ever qualify as an exceptional circumstance warranting equitable tolling.

This Court should grant certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether “gross negligence” by collateral counsel, which directly results in the late filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, can qualify as an exceptional circumstance warranting equitable tolling, or whether, in conflict with other circuits, the Eleventh Circuit was proper in determining that factors beyond “gross negligence” must be established before an extraordinary circumstance can be found that would warrant equitable tolling.

In 1996, a Florida state court convicted Albert Holland of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, attempted sexual battery, and armed robbery, and subsequently sentenced Holland to death. See Holland v. Florida, 539 F.3d 1334, 1336–37 (11th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

· Congressional Research Services: Federal Habeas Corpus: A Brief Legal Overview

· Federation of American Scientists: Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: A Summary

· Commission on Capital Cases: Inmate Details for Albert Holland

Submit for publication
0

Holder v. Gutierrez (10-1542) & Holder v. Sawyers

Issues

Should a parent's years of residence after lawful admission be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor for purposes of satisfying the residency requirements of U.S.C. 1229b(a)?

 

In Holder v. Gutierrez and Holder v. Sawyers, the Supreme Court will determine whether aliens may impute their parents’ time spent lawfully residing in the United States to satisfy residency requirements for cancellation of removal under Section 1229b. In both cases, the individuals entered the United States as children, lived with their legal permanent resident parents, and later became inadmissible due to violations of the law. Attorney General Eric Holder argues that the plain language of 1229b does not allow  imputation,  and that allowing imputation would be contrary to congressional intent. On the other hand, Respondents Gutierrez and Sawyers contend that Congress intended the Immigration and Nationality Act to preserve family unity. They argue that interpreting the statute to disallow imputation would be unreasonable and contrary to congressional intent. If the Supreme Court upholds the imputation rule, aliens who resided with their legal permanent resident parents as minors would be able to impute  the their  parents’ residency period to satisfy the requirements for cancellation of removal under 1229(b).

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Questions Presented for 10-1542 [Holder v. Gutierrez]

1. Whether a parent's years of lawful permanent resident status can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(1)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have "been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years."

2. Whether a parent's years of residence after lawful admission to the United States can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have "resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status." 

Questions Presented for 10-1543 [Holder v. Sawyers]

Whether a parent's years of residence after lawful admission to the United States can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have "resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status."

​

 

Factual Background for Holder v. Gutierrez

In 1989, respondent Carlos Martinez Gutierrez illegally entered the United States to reside with his parents at the age of five. See Brief for Petitioner, Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Hill v. McDonough

Issues

Is a district court’s finding that a patent suit is objectively baseless entitled to deference?

 

Respondent Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., owns U.S. Patent No. 5,301,105, which covers a method of data entry and management used in the context of medical treatment. In 2002, Allcare notified Petitioner Highmark, Inc., a medical insurance provider, that Highmark was infringing on Allcare’s patent. Highmark sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement; Allcare counterclaimed for infringement. After the district court granted summary judgment in Highmark’s favor, Highmark moved for an award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which grants attorneys’ fees for “exceptional cases.” Though the district court granted the award for two of Allcare’s claims, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the claims de novo and reversed one of them. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the scope of deference given to district courts to find “exceptional cases.” The ruling in this case, in tandem with another case before the Court, Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., will impact how long and how readily litigants may pursue future patent cases.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a district court's exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, based on its judgment that a suit is objectively baseless, is entitled to deference.

Respondent Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc. (“Allcare”) owns U.S. Patent No. 5,301,105 (“the ’105 patent”), which covers a health management system that facilitates interactions among physicians, patients, employers, banks, and insurance companies. See Highmark, Inc.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Hertz Corp. v. Friend

Issues

What factors should courts look to when determining the “citizenship” of a multistate corporation to determine whether or not to exercise diversity jurisdiction?

 

Though federal courts are generally only able to hear claims arising under federal law, Congress gives them the power to exercise so-called “diversity jurisdiction” over any state law civil claim between citizens of different states. When a multistate corporation seeks relief in federal court on the basis of a diversity action, courts wrestle with exactly what factors they should look to in determining the corporation’s citizenship. Here, a group of California citizens sued Hertz Corporation in California state court alleging violations of California’s state labor laws. Hertz sought to remove the case to federal court. The Ninth Circuit concluded Hertz was a California citizen and denied removal jurisdiction. This case presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to lay out a specific test for determining corporate citizenship for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, for purposes of determining principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a court can disregard the location of a nationwide corporation's headquarters - i.e., its nerve center.

Congress gives federal district courts the power to exercise “diversity jurisdiction” over any civil claim for at least $75,000 arising between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

·      Wex: Diversity Jurisdiction

·      Wex: Statutory Construction

·      Wex: Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Submit for publication
0

Herring v. United States

Issues

Should the exclusionary rule be extended to situations where a police officer relies in good faith on an invalid warrant, when that reliance was the result of a clerical error made by an employee of a law enforcement agency?

 

In 2004, Alabama police officers arrested Bennie Dean Herring and, in a search immediately following the arrest, recovered methamphetamines and a handgun. The officers arrested Herring because they were erroneously told that that a warrant for his arrest existed. Herring moved to suppress evidence of the methamphetamines and gun, arguing that they were recovered as a result of an unlawful search, and consequently, that the exclusionary rule should apply. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied his motion, finding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule extends to good faith reliance by police officers on erroneous information provided by law enforcement personnel. In reviewing this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the deterrent effect of excluding evidence obtained as a result of negligent error by law enforcement personnel outweighs the costs of excluding such evidence, or whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should be extended.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Fourth Amendment requires evidence found during a search incident to an arrest to be suppressed when the arresting officer conducted the arrest and search in sole reliance upon facially credible but erroneous information negligently provided by another law enforcement agent.

On July 7, 2004, the petitioner, Bennie Dean Herring, went to the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department to retrieve items from an impounded motor vehicle. See Brief for Petitioner, Herring at 4. Investigator Mark Anderson, who knew Herring, asked warrant clerk Sandy Pope to check the Coffee County databases for outstanding arrest warrants for Herring. See 

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

• CRS Annotated Constitution: Fourth Amendment “Search and Seizure”

Submit for publication
0

Henderson v. Shinseki

Issues

Does equitable tolling apply to Section 7266(a) of the Veterans Judicial Review Act, which sets a 120-day time limit for veterans to file a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims?

 

David Henderson, a veteran of the Korean War, was discharged after being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. After receiving a final decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs denying his request for home care, Henderson had 120 days to file notice of his intent to appeal. Henderson failed to file until 15 days after the deadline had passed and claimed that his illness prevented him from filing on time. Appearing pro se, Henderson requested the Veterans Court apply equitable tolling to permit his appeal. The court denied Henderson’s request but then requested pro bono counsel to assist Henderson in filing for rehearing. While the request for rehearing was in process, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Bowles v. Russell. The lower courts interpreted Bowles to mean that all statutory deadlines for filing appeals are jurisdictional, and therefore Henderson’s request for equitable tolling was rejected because the court could not hear the case. The Supreme Court’s decision will clarify how lower courts should evaluate statutory time limits and will help determine which procedural limits are jurisdictional and thus not subject to equitable tolling.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Section 7266(a) of Title 38, U.S.C., establishes a 120-day time limit for a veteran to seek judicial review of a final agency decision denying the veteran's claim for disability benefits. Before the decision below, the Federal Circuit in two en banc decisions held that Section 7266(a) constitutes a statute of limitations subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling under this Court's decision in Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990). In the divided en banc decision below, however, the Federal Circuit held that this Court's decision in Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), superseded Irwin and rendered Section 7266(a) jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling.

The question presented is whether the time limit in Section 7266(a) constitutes a statute of limitations subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling, or whether the time limit is jurisdictional and therefore bars application of that doctrine. 

Petitioner David Henderson is a Korean War veteran who was discharged from active duty in 1952 due to paranoid schizophrenia. See Henderson v. Shinseki, 589 F.3d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York

Issues

Does loss of taxable revenue constitute an injury to business or property under RICO and was the City’s injury direct enough to meet the direct injury requirement for standing under RICO?

 

Both the State and the City of New York have enacted laws that require the imposition of taxes on all cigarettes sold or used within their boundaries. The City of New York sued a group of Internet cigarette retailers under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The City of New York claimed that the retailers had violated federal and state laws in selling cigarettes to New York residents without charging a tax on tobacco products, constituting a form of consumer fraud as well as tax evasion. The District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the City's claims, holding that the City did not plead that the Internet retailers were an enterprise as defined by RICO. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the lower court and held that the State could hold the retailers liable for its loss of tax revenue. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will affect the ability of Internet sites to sell tobacco products at a discounted price, as well as refine the application of RICO in civil suits.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether city government meets the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act standing requirement that a plaintiff  be  directly injured in its “business or property” by alleging con-commercial injury resulting from non-payment of taxes by non-litigant third parties.

The State of New York imposes a tax on all cigarettes sold or used in the State (known as a use tax). See City of New York v. Smokes-Spirits.com, Inc., 541 F.3d 425, 432 (2nd Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

·      Bloomberg.com, Greg Stohr: New York Suits Over Cigarette Sales Get U.S. High Court Review (May 4, 2009)

·      Business Week, Brian Burnsed: Preview of Major Business Cases in Supreme Court’s 2009-2010 Term (Sept. 24, 2009)

·      Trade Regulation Talk, John W. Arden & Mark Engstrom: High Court to Consider RICO’s “Business or Property” Requirement (May 22, 2009)

Submit for publication
0

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation

Issues

Do taxpayers have the ability to challenge the actions of the Executive Branch based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the Legislative Branch from making laws violating the freedom of religion?

 

In 2001, President Bush announced the Faith Based and Community Initiatives plan, which uses funds appropriated by Congress to establish a series of conferences designed to coordinate and support both religious and secular community organizations. The Freedom from Religion Foundation, represented by taxpayer plaintiffs, challenged this program on the basis that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but the suit was dismissed for lack of standing. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding that various Supreme Court precedents establish that the Foundation did have standing. The government has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Foundation’s inability to identify a particular Congressional appropriation removes the programs from the Establishment Clause prohibition on Congressional action supporting religion.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether taxpayers have  standing  under Article III of the Constitution to challenge on Establishment Clause grounds the actions of the Executive Branch pursuant to an Executive Order, where the plaintiffs challenge no Act of Congress, the Executive Branch actions at issue are financed only indirectly through general appropriations, and no funds are disbursed to any entities or individuals outside the government.

In 2004, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (“the Foundation”), represented by three taxpayer plaintiffs, filed suit in Federal District Court, challenging part of President Bush’s Faith Based and Community Initiatives (“FBCI”) plan. See Freedom from Religion, Inc. v. Chao, 433 F.3d 989, 993 (7th Cir. 2006).

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Heffernan v. City of Paterson

Issues

To raise a First Amendment retaliation claim, must public employees show they were fired for actually engaging in constitutionally protected activities?

 

In Paterson, New Jersey’s 2006 mayoral election, Mayor Jose Torres faced former police chief Lawrence Spagnola. See Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 777 F.3d 147, 149–50 (3d Cir. 2015). Although he was friends with Spagnola and supported him privately, Paterson police detective Jeffrey Heffernan did not campaign for Spagnola, vote in the election, or consider himself politically active. But the day after picking up a Spagnola campaign yard sign at his mother’s request, Heffernan was demoted for his alleged political activities. See id. The Supreme Court will decide if Heffernan, to raise a First Amendment retaliation claim, must show that he actually engaged in constitutionally protected activity, or merely demonstrate that the City of Paterson fired him based on its belief that he engaged in protected activity. Heffernan argues that the First Amendment protects government employees from adverse action that is based upon political expression or association, regardless of the true nature of employees’ activities. See Brief for Petitioner, Jeffrey Heffernan at at 14. But Paterson maintains that the First Amendment protects only the literal exercise of association and speech. See Brief for Respondent, City of Paterson et al. at 8–12. The Court’s decision will impact how public employees engage in political activity, and the amount of litigation surrounding retaliation claims. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does the First Amendment bar the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor’s perception that the employee supports a political candidate?

After twenty years in Paterson, New Jersey's police department, Jeffrey Heffernan was named a detective in 2005. See Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 777 F.3d 147, 149 (3d Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to