Wilson v. Sellers

Issues

Can a district court look past a state appellate court’s summary denial of a habeas petition and review the lower state court decision to determine whether the appellate court’s decision to deny habeas relief was unreasonable? 

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) allows a federal court reviewing state habeas decisions to “look through” a summary decision made by a state appellate court and instead examine the last reasoned opinion of a lower state court. Petitioner Marion Wilson, the habeas petitioner, contends that the Supreme Court case Ylst v. Nunnemaker guides district courts to “look through” state appellate court summary decisions to reasoned lower state court decisions when examining a state criminal proceeding’s constitutionality. Respondent Eric Sellers, Warden of the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, argues that the later Supreme Court case of Harrington v. Richter, along with the text of § 2254, rejects Ylst’s “look through” method. This case has potential implications for federalism concerns and the structure of state habeas proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Did this Court’s decision in Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), silently abrogate the presumption set forth in Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) – that a federal court sitting in habeas proceedings should “look through” a summary state court ruling to review the last reasoned decision – as a slim majority of the en banc Eleventh Circuit held in this case, despite the agreement of both parties that the Ylst presumption should continue to apply?

In 1997, Petitioner Marion Wilson was charged with and convicted of murder, armed robbery, hijacking a motor vehicle, and several other violent crimes. Wilson v. Warden, 774 F.3d 671, 674 (11th Cir. 2014), reh’g en back granted, op. vacated, No. 14-10681 (11th Cir. July 30, 2015).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge

Issues

What is the appropriate standard of review in determining non-statutory insider status under the Bankruptcy Code? 

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether a lower court’s determination of an individual’s non-statutory insider status during a bankruptcy proceedings should be reviewed using the de novo standard or the clearly erroneous standard. The designation of insider status matters because, under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10), an insider—both as officially defined by the statute and as defined by the more expansive case law (a non-statutory insider)— is not permitted to vote during the consideration of a debt restructuring plan, even if his debt interests are harmed by the plan. U.S. Bank National Association argues that when a party appeals its designation as a non-statutory insider, courts should apply a de novo standard of review to such analysis, because it is either a pure question of law or at least a mixed question of law and fact. In contrast, Village at Lakeridge contends that courts should apply a clear error standard to this question because it involves pure fact. U.S. Bank National Association argues that de novo review prevents forum shopping and promotes judicial uniformity. Village at Lakeridge counters that de novo review undermines judicial economy and wastes party resources. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously applied a clear error standard of review for determining non-statutory insider status under the Bankruptcy Code where the material facts were undisputed, rather than a de novo standard of review applied by the majority of circuit courts that have addressed the issue. 

U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) is a creditor of Village at Lakeridge, LLC (“Lakeridge”) for a $10 million secured claim. U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, 814 F.3d 993, 996 (9th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Artis v. District of Columbia

Issues

In a case involving both federal- and state-law claims, if a federal court dismisses a plaintiff’s federal claim and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, does the tolling provision in § 1367(d) suspend the limitations period for the plaintiff’s state-law claim while the claim is pending and for an additional thirty days after the claim is dismissed, or does the tolling provision simply provide an additional thirty days beyond the dismissal for the plaintiff to re-file without suspending the limitations period?

The court will decide whether the tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)—which addresses cases involving both federal- and state-law claims suspends the limitations period for a state-law claim while the federal claim is pending and provides an additional thirty days after the federal claim is dismissed, or whether it simply provides thirty days beyond the dismissal of the claim to re-file in state court. Stephanie Artis argues that § 1367(d) suspends the limitations period for state-law claims while the federal claims are pending and provides an additional thirty days in which to re-file after claims are dismissed. On the other hand, the District of Columbia argues that the approach taken by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which only provides an additional thirty days after a state-claim is dismissed, is the appropriate standard. This issue arises in every case in which a district court ultimately declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the case will impact the way in which plaintiffs bring state-law claims in federal courts. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Section 1367 of Title 28 authorizes federal district courts in certain circumstances to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under State law. Section 1367 further provides that “[t]he period of limitations for any [such] claim … shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of thirty days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). The question presented is whether the tolling provision in § 1367(d) suspends the limitations period for the state-law claim while the federal suit is pending and for thirty days after the claim is dismissed, or whether the tolling provision does not suspend the limitations period but merely provides thirty days beyond the dismissal for the plaintiff to refile.

Beginning in August 2007, Petitioner Stephanie C. Artis was employed, under temporary status, as a Department of Health inspector. Artis v. District of Columbia, 135 A.3d 334, 335 (D.C. 2016). During her employment, Artis had a combative relationship with her supervisor, Gerard Brown. Id. Artis contends that Brown constantly treated her unfairly in the workplace.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services Of Chicago

Issues

Is Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) jurisdictional in nature or is it instead a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule?

The issue in this case involves whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) is a jurisdictional rule or a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule. Hamer argues that the Rule is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule because it has no statutory basis, while Neighborhood Housing Services argues that the Rule is a jurisdictional rule because it prescribes the types of cases over which a court has adjudicatory authority and has a statutory basis. The case is significant from a legal perspective because it will determine whether a violation of Rule 4(a)(5)(C) strips a court of appeals of its jurisdiction to hear a case on the merits, or whether the court may still consider the case on the merits based on equitable considerations or if a party waived or forfeited its right to seek dismissal under the Rule. From a policy perspective, this case is significant because its outcome will affect the judicial system’s interest in finality and because a decision affirming the Seventh Circuit would caution against relying on the legal accuracy of orders from district court judges regarding appeals. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) can deprive a court of appeals of jurisdiction over an appeal that is statutorily timely, or whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) is instead a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule because it is not derived from a statute, and therefore subject to forfeiture or waiver by an appellee, or subject to equitable considerations such as the unique-circumstances doctrine.

Petitioner Charmaine Hamer (“Hamer”) worked as an Intake Specialist for the Respondents, Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago and Fannie Mae’s Mortgage Help Center (“Housing Services”), for several years. Brief for Respondents, Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago and Fannie Mae at 3. Hamer applied for promotions during her time there but never received any.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense

Issues

Do federal district courts have broader jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C 1369(b)(1) over challenges to rules promulgated under the Clean Water Act than that statute expressly enumerates?

This case presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to review whether the Clean Water Act grants broad original and exclusive jurisdiction to the United States Courts of Appeals. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agency actions are judicially reviewable by the federal district courts unless otherwise provided by congressional statute. One such provision—Section 1369(b) of the Clean Water Act—enumerates classes of agency actions that are originally and exclusively reviewable by the Courts of Appeals. In June 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency jointly adopted a new rule redefining the phrase “waters of the United States.” The National Association of Manufacturers argues that challenges to this rule fall outside of the classes enumerated in Section 1369(b) and thus are not directly reviewable by the Courts of Appeals. The Department of Defense and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on the other hand, argue that Section 1369(b) should be read broadly and functionally as to include the rule. The outcome of this case will implicate judicial efficiency and thoroughness concerns.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the United States Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(1) over a petition for review challenging a regulation that defines the scope of the term “waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act. 

In June 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) jointly adopted the “Waters of the United States” Rule (“WOTUS Rule”) as published in the “Clean Water Rule.” See In re U.S. Dep’t of Def. et al., 817 F.3d 261, 264 (6th Cir. 2016); Brief for Petitioner, National Association of Manufacturers (“NAM”) at 2.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Jesner v. Arab Bank

Issues

Can foreign plaintiffs sue corporations in the United States under the Alien Tort Statute?

Under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), foreign victims of torts that violate international law may sue foreign perpetrators in United States courts if the case touches and concerns the United States. The Court must now determine whether the ATS contemplates suits against foreign corporations. Jesner et al.––survivors of terrorist attacks in the Middle East and the families of such victims––allege that Arab Bank (“the Bank”), headquartered in Jordan, financed terrorist organizations through its New York branch, and should therefore be within the purview of the ATS. The Bank denies these allegations, and maintains that, because corporate liability is not a universal international norm, United States courts do not have jurisdiction over foreign corporations under the ATS. Jesner argues that denying corporate liability will eliminate a significant deterrent against terrorism financing and create international discord, while the Bank counters that corporate liability would actually hinder counterterrorism efforts and damage the United States’ alliance with Jordan. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, categorically forecloses corporate liability.

Petitioners, Joseph Jesner, et al. (“Jesner”), are non-residents of the United States who were injured by terrorists in the Middle East. In re Arab Bank, PLC Alien Tort Statute Litigation, 808 F.3d 144, 147 (2d Cir. 2015 ). Respondent, Arab Bank, PLC (the “Bank”), is a global bank headquartered in Jordan, with a branch in New York.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Jennings v. Rodriguez (updated)

Issues

Did the Ninth Circuit err in deciding that non-citizens who are subject to mandatory detention while seeking admission to the United States must be granted bond hearings at six month intervals throughout their detention and are entitled to release unless the government meets its burden by demonstrating that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community? 

[UPDATE] The Supreme Court heard oral argument for this case and requested additional briefing. The Court received the requested briefing and re-set the case for additional argument during the 2017-2018 term.

In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether immigrants to the United States, who are being detained under civil immigration detention statutes, must be brought before an immigration judge for a bond hearing at six month intervals throughout their detention and whether the immigration judge must consider alternatives to a detained immigrant’s prolonged detention if the government fails to show through clear and convincing evidence that the immigrant is a flight risk or danger to the community. David Jennings et al. argue that statutory language and congressional intent prohibit immigration judges from releasing non-citizens detained under the civil immigration detention statutes on bond. Meanwhile, Alejandro Rodriguez et al. argue that Congress did not authorize prolonged detention through the immigration statutes and that without periodic bond hearings or the government’s justification of continued detention, individuals would be needlessly deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact detained non-citizen’s constitutional rights and their ability to exercise their legal rights during removal proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), inadmissible aliens who arrive at our Nation’s borders must be detained, without a bond hearing, during proceedings to remove them from the country. Under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), certain criminal and terrorist aliens must be detained, without a bond hearing, during removal proceedings. Under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), other aliens may be released on bond during their removal proceedings, if the alien demonstrates that he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. 8 C.F.R. 236.1(c)(8). Aliens detained under Section 1226(a) may receive additional bond hearings if circumstances have changed materially. 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(e).

  1. Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months
  2. Whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months.
  3. Whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community; whether the length of the alien’s detention must be weighed in favor of release; and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months.

Alejandro Rodriguez, Abdirizak Aden Farah, Jose Farias Cornejo, Yussuf Abdikadir, Abel Perez Ruelas, and Efren Orozco are all non-citizens who sued in a class action challenging their prolonged detentions without individualized bond hearings or re-evaluations of the reasons for their continued detention under civil immigration detention statutes. See Rodriguez v. Robbins, No.

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

Original Preview by Reymond Yamine and Natalie San Juan.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Class v. United States

Issues

Does a guilty plea inherently waive a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute underlying his conviction unless that right is explicitly preserved in the plea agreement?

This case will allow the Supreme Court to clarify the appellate rights of criminal defendants who have pled guilty and subsequently want to challenge the constitutionality of their statute of conviction. Circuit courts have been divided on the subject. Petitioner, Class, argues that the Court should apply the precedent set in Blackledge v. Perry and Menna v. New York to his case by holding that constitutional challenge claims do not challenge a defendant’s factual guilt or dispute whether the government met every burden of proving each element of the crime, and therefore are not precluded by pleading guilty. Respondent, the United States, argues that a constitutional challenge to a defendant’s statute of conviction is inherently waived in a guilty plea as an aspect of his factual guilt unless it is expressly preserved in his plea agreement. With this decision, the Supreme Court will determine the constitutional rights of all criminal defendants who plead guilty and likely impact the role guilty pleas play in United States jurisprudence.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a guilty plea inherently waives defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction.

On May 30, 2013, Petitioner Rodney Class (“Class”) parked his Jeep, which contained guns and ammunition, in a parking lot located on the Capitol grounds on the 200 block of Maryland Avenue, SW in Washington D.C. See Brief for Petitioner, Rodney Class at 4–5. While Class visited the Capitol buildings, a police officer noticed a Jeep without the permit required to park in the lot and saw a blade and gun holster inside.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

District of Columbia v. Wesby

Issues

What is the scope of probable cause for trespass under the Fourth Amendment, and was this law so clearly established prior to the arrests involved as to entitle the police officers to qualified immunity?  

The Supreme Court will decide whether a police officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect for trespassing under the Fourth Amendment when the owner of a house says that the suspects do not have authority to enter and the officers find circumstantial evidence of trespass, but the suspects claim that they thought that they had authority to be there. Additionally, the Court will decide whether, if the officers did not have probable cause to arrest the suspects in this case, the law of probable cause for trespass was unclear enough to entitle the officers to qualified immunity. Petitioners District of Columbia, et al. argue that an officer, in order to be able to make timely probable cause determinations, should not be required to exactly determine the criminal intent of a suspect; at the very least, the District of Columbia argues, officers should not be required to rely on a suspect’s claims of an innocent mental state. The District of Columbia also argues that the law was not “clearly established” in this area and so the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Respondents Theodore Wesby, et al. argue that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest the suspects for trespassing because the suspects indicated that they thought that they had permission to be in the home and, thus, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. This case will address the scope of the probable cause standard for trespass claims under the Fourth Amendment and will clarify the standard for qualified immunity.  

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Police officers found late-night partiers inside a vacant home belonging to someone else. After giving conflicting stories for their presence, some partiers claimed they had been invited by a different person who was not there. The lawful owner told the officers, however, that he had not authorized entry by anyone. The officers arrested the partiers for trespassing. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether the officers had probable cause to arrest under the Fourth Amendment, and in particular whether, when the owner of a vacant home informs police that he has not authorized entry, an officer assessing probable cause to arrest those inside for trespassing may discredit the suspects’ questionable claims of an innocent mental state.
  2. Whether, even if there was no probable cause to arrest the apparent trespassers, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in this regard.

Early in the morning on March 16, 2008, Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) officers responded to a complaint of illegal activity occurring in a vacant house. See Wesby v. District of Columbia, 765 F.3d 13 at 3–4 (D.C. Cir. 2014). When the officers entered the house, they saw “scantily-clad” women who they believed were “stripping” for other guests of the party.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Beverly R. Gill, et al. v. William Whitford, et al.

Issues

Can individual voters challenge a state-wide redistricting plan as unconstitutional? Is a re-districting plan constitutional so long as it complies with traditional districting criteria? Was the issue of entrenchment properly litigated?

In what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the most important case presently before the Supreme Court, the Court will venture into the thicket of redistricting. Wisconsin Republicans redrew Wisconsin’s State Assembly district maps in 2011, allowing them to win the majority of Assembly seats with only 48.6% of state votes and prompting Wisconsin Democrats to sue. A U.S. District Court held for the Wisconsin Democrats, finding the re-districting plan unconstitutional because it was gerrymandered with the intent of disenfranchising Democrats, had such an effect, and lacked a legitimate justification for its effects. Four issues will decide the outcome of this case: are the Democrats entitled to have their claim heard in court; is the test that the district court adopted judicially “discernable” and “manageable” enough for courts to apply; does compliance with traditional districting criteria render a redistricting plan non-discriminatory notwithstanding the district court’s test; and did the parties fully litigate the issue of entrenchment? Will the Court intervene in partisan gerrymandering and expand federal power or will it abstain from this politically charged question to protect federalism?

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Whether the district court correctly held that Appellees have standing to challenge in its entirety the district plan for Wisconsin’s State Assembly as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander?
  2. Whether the district court correctly held that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable pursuant to the test the court adopted—requiring discriminatory intent, a large and durable discriminatory effect, and a lack of any legitimate justification?
  3. Whether the district court correctly held that compliance with traditional districting criteria is not a safe harbor that precludes any possibility of liability for partisan gerrymandering?
  4. Whether Appellants are entitled to a remand on the issue of entrenchment even though Appellees and the district court emphasized the durability of a party’s advantage throughout the litigation?

Wisconsin has long faced difficulty drawing its electoral districts—a process commonly known as redistricting. Whitford v. Gill, No. 15-cv-421-bbc, at *5–6 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 21, 2016). In the 1980s, after a Republican governor repeatedly vetoed any redistricting plans proposed by the Democratic Assembly, a federal court had to determine the districts. Id. at 5.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to