Gutierrez v. Saenz

Issues

For Article III standing purposes, does Ruben Gutierrez have a redressable injury if it is not clear that a declaratory judgment in his favor would allow him to access the DNA evidence he seeks?

This case asks the Court to determine if Ruben Gutierrez has Article III standing to seek a declaratory judgment in federal court stating that Texas’ denial of access to DNA evidence violates his constitutional rights. Gutierrez contends that he has standing to seek this declaratory judgment because it would significantly increase the likelihood that the prosecutor would subsequently grant him access to the DNA evidence he seeks. Saenz contends that Gutierrez lacks standing because a declaratory judgment would not affect the state’s refusal to grant Gutierrez access to the DNA evidence. This case touches upon the role of the states and the federal government in protecting fundamental rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.

Ruben Gutierrez was convicted of capital murder in 1999 for the murder of Escolastica Harrison and was sentenced to death in Texas state court. Gutierrez v. Saenz at 1. Harrison lived in a mobile-home park in Brownsville, Texas with her nephew, who was a friend of Gutierrez.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Esteras v. United States

Issues

When determining whether to revoke supervised release, does a district court commit error if it relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)’s sentencing factors despite their absence from 18 U.S.C § 3583(e)’s enumerated list?

This case asks the Court to determine whether a district court presiding over a revocation hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) may consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) despite their absence from Section 3583(e)’s enumerated list. Section 3553(a)(2)(A)’s sentencing factors include reflecting the seriousness of the offense, promoting respect for the law, and providing just punishment for the offense. Petitioner argues that Section 3583(e)’s list is exhaustive, and omission of the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors precludes a district court from considering them to determine revocation of supervised release. Respondent counters that the consideration factors set out in Section 3583 are not exhaustive, and the factors in Section 3553 may be relied upon by a district court when determining the modification or revocation of supervised release. This case touches on important questions regarding the purpose of supervised release, a court’s discretion to revoke and reimprison violators, and the impact that judicial discretion has on the carceral system.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.

In 1984, through the Sentencing Reform Act (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3583), Congress abolished the federal parole system and created a new form of post-imprisonment supervision called supervised release. 18 U.S.C.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

Issues

Do plaintiffs suing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act who are members of “majority groups” have to show “background circumstances” showing their employer discriminates against the majority?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a plaintiff suing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act who is a member of a majority group must provide “background circumstances” to show that their employer discriminates against majority groups. Ames argues that the background circumstances rule treats plaintiffs differently based on their protected characteristics, contradicting the goals of Title VII. The Ohio Department of Youth Services argues that the background circumstances rule is only a method for deciding individual cases and does not discriminate based on a protected characteristic. This case has important implications for how readily individuals can use the civil rights laws to sue, and how courts determine discrimination without direct evidence.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

In 2014, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“Department”) appointed Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, to be the Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA Administrator”); this was an at-will employment position which meant that she could be fired without cause. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs. at 2. Then in 2017, Ginine Trim, a gay woman, was assigned to be Ames’s new supervisor.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

X (Parental Order: Death of Intended Parent Prior to Birth) Re England and Wales Family Court 2020

Mr and Mrs Y entered into a surrogacy agreement with Mr and Mrs Z following unsuccessful IVF treatments. An embryo was created using Mrs Z and Mr Y’s DNA and was transferred to Mrs Z in May 2018. When Mrs Z was five months pregnant, Mr Y died. X was born in 2019. As part of the surrogacy agreement, Mr and Mrs Y were to apply for a parental order immediately after the birth of the child. Given Mr Y’s sudden death prior to, the birth certificate named Mr Z as the father. Mrs Y wanted to have Mr Y recognised as the father.

R. (on the application of TT) v Registrar General for England and Wales, England and Wales High Court 2019

The claimant had been registered female at birth but had transitioned to live as a man. He had obtained a gender recognition certificate confirming his gender as male under the law. He suspended testosterone treatment and had intra-uterine insemination with donor sperm.

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Chapter 42)

The Sexual Offences Act Chapter 42 was enacted to introduce new provisions in relation to sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts. Part 1 makes new provision about sexual offences. It covers the non-consensual offences of rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault, and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. It defines “consent” and “sexual” and sets out evidential and conclusive presumptions about consent. It covers child sex offences and offences involving an abuse of a position of trust towards a child.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 establishes the legal framework for the UK’s policy of relocating certain migrants to Rwanda, affirming Rwanda as a "safe country" and limiting legal challenges to removals on safety grounds. The Act mandates that decision-makers, including courts and immigration officials, treat Rwanda as safe, disapplies relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, and restricts judicial review of removal decisions.

Subscribe to