United States Postal Service, et al. v. Lebene Konan

Issues

Can a plaintiff sue the United States Postal Service under the Federal Tort Claims Act when postal employees intentionally do not deliver the plaintiff’s mail?

 

This case asks the Court to determine whether the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (“FTCA”) postal exception covers intentional failure to deliver mail. The FTCA prohibits tort claims against the government that arise out of the “the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of the mail. The United States Postal Service and the United States of America (collectively “USPS”) argue that the Court should adopt a broad reading of the statute’s language. USPS argues that intentional torts for withholding mail fit into the meanings of the words “miscarriage” or “loss.” Lebene Konan argues that such a broad reading would render the statute superfluous and depart from the ordinary meanings of “loss” and “miscarriage.” The outcome of this case could impact the USPS’s efficiency, and it will determine whether there is a legal remedy available for people harmed by a postal employee’s intentional tort. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a plaintiff’s claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of “the loss” or “miscarriage” of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Congress enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) to waive the United States’s sovereign immunity when parties bring tort claims against the government for lost property damages caused by the conduct of federal employees. 

Submit for publication
0

Villarreal v. Texas

Issues

Does a trial court’s order that prevents a defendant and their attorney from discussing the defendant’s ongoing testimony during an overnight recess violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

 

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a trial court may bar defense counsel from discussing a defendant’s ongoing testimony during an overnight recess. Villarreal argues that this restriction violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the attorney-client privilege. Texas counters that the restriction is a qualified order that does not infringe on constitutionally protected communications. The outcome of this case has profound implications for the fairness of trials and defendants’ testimony. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does a trial court’s order that prevents a defendant and their attorney from discussing the defendant’s ongoing testimony during an overnight recess violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

David Asa Villarreal was on trial for allegedly murdering his live-in boyfriend, Aaron Estrada. Brief for Petitioner, David Asa Villarreal at 3; 

Submit for publication
0

Chiles v. Salazar

Issues

Considering a state’s regulatory authority over professional conduct, does the First Amendment permit states to regulate the content of certain conversations between counselors and their clients?

 

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (“MCTL”), which prohibits mental health professionals from providing LGBTQ+ conversion therapy to minor clients, violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado, argues that MCTL infringes on constitutionally protected speech by discriminating against certain content and viewpoints. She asserts that Colorado failed to meet its burden of strict scrutiny because the statute does not further a compelling state interest, nor is it narrowly tailored. Patty Salazar, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, argues that states have the power to regulate professional conduct, even if doing so incidentally affects speech. Salazar maintains that Chiles’s position undermines a state’s ability to regulate the conduct of mental health professionals. The outcome of this case will also have significant ramifications for the availability of certain treatment methods.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

In 2019, the Colorado legislature added the Minor Conversion Therapy Law (“MCTL”) to the Mental Health Practice Act (“MHPA”), which regulates the practice and conduct of mental health professionals in the state. 

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Michael C. Dorf for his guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Issues

Do political candidates have Article III standing to challenge election laws?

 

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether federal political candidates generally, and Michael Bost specifically, have Article III standing to challenge state election laws. In particular, the parties are asking the Court to identify the appropriate legal standard to establish Article III standing with respect to political candidates. Petitioners, Michael Bost, et al. (“Bost”), argue that political candidates meet the injury in fact requirement of standing because candidates are harmed by the possibility of losing an election, by their participation in an illegitimate election, and by the divergence of funds used to maintain an extended campaign. Respondents, the Illinois State Board of Elections, et al. (“Illinois”), counter that candidates cannot meet this requirement by simply asserting a risk of losing an election but instead must provide evidence that the risk of individual harm is substantial. A decision in favor of Bost would likely reduce standing requirements for political candidates, making it likely that more candidates will bring lawsuits challenging election laws. A decision for Illinois would make it more difficult for political candidates to bring suit, and if evidence of changed election outcomes is required, litigation surrounding election laws may be pushed until after elections take place, leading to uncertain and even overturned election results. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Berk v. Choy

Issues

Does a state law that requires an expert affidavit to successfully bring a lawsuit in some cases also apply in federal court? 

 

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a Delaware law that imposes an extra pleading requirement for medical malpractice complaints applies in federal cases. Berk maintains that the Delaware law is incompatible with numerous Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is procedural, and therefore cannot be applied in federal courts under the Erie doctrine. Respondents contend that the affidavit of merit simply screens the merits of a suit without altering pleadings, which avoids any conflicts with the Federal Rules, is specifically contemplated by Rule 11(a), and should be interpreted as a substantive rule under Erie. The Third Circuit held that there was no conflict with the Federal Rules and that the Delaware law is substantive. This created a circuit split contradicting other appellate courts that refused to apply similar laws from other states. This case will potentially affect forum‑shopping incentives, plaintiffs’ access to courts, and healthcare litigation exposure.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.

Harold Berk (“Berk”), the petitioner, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Wilson Choy (“Choy”), Beebe Medical Center (“Beebe”), and Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital in the U.S.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Constitution of the Republic of Seychelles

The Constitution of the Republic of Seychelles guarantees fundamental rights and protections. Article 16 prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, while Article 17 bans slavery and forced labor. Article 27 affirms the right to equal protection of the law and prohibits discrimination on grounds including sex. Article 31 protects children from economic exploitation and establishes a minimum employment age of 15 years. Article 32 regulates marriage, including prohibiting marriage between individuals of the same sex.

Evidence Act, Article 11(B) of Seychelles

Article 11(B) of the Evidence Act provides special protections for vulnerable witnesses when testifying in criminal proceedings. Vulnerable witnesses are defined as individuals under 16 years of age, persons with intellectual disabilities, victims of sexual offenses, or others deemed disadvantaged. These protections are intended to preserve the dignity of such witnesses and prevent intimidation during testimony.

R v LL (CR 94 of 2020) [2021] SCSC 244

The defendant was prosecuted in the Supreme Court of Seychelles for procuring an abortion, violating Section 148 of the Penal Code. The defendant was charged with unlawfully administering pills to induce a miscarriage. She pleaded guilty and expressed remorse for her actions. In sentencing, the Court imposed a two-year suspended sentence together with a monetary fine, taking into account her plea and contrition.

Seychelles Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act 13 of 2024)

The Seychelles Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2024 introduces new protections against hate crimes and hate speech by incorporating “protected characteristics” into the Penal Code. Section 5 now defines protected characteristics to include race, religion or lack of belief, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics, political affiliation, and HIV/AIDS status.

Subscribe to