Should Anyone Care that Sexual Assault is “Out of Character” for Biden?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb considers what people mean when they say that a sexual assault allegation seems “out of character” for a particular person and explains why that reasoning is logically flawed. Focusing on differences between how people behave publicly and privately, Colb argues that the lack of an observed pattern of sexual misconduct is not evidence that a person did not engage in sexual misconduct on a specific occasion.

Read More

Aucoin v. Cupil

Docket: 19-30779

Opinion Date: May 6, 2020

Judge: James C. Ho

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

When a prison inmate engages in willful misconduct, a prison guard may use reasonable force to restrain him—but after the inmate submits, there is no need, and thus no justification, for the further use of force. Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a convicted criminal may not bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, if success on that claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prior criminal conviction. An inmate cannot bring a section 1983 claim for excessive use of force by a prison guard, if the inmate has already been found guilty for misconduct that justified that use of force. However, Heck does not bar a section 1983 claim for a prison guard’s excessive use of force after the inmate has submitted and ceased engaging in the alleged misconduct. In this case, the Fifth Circuit held that Heck barred plaintiff's section 1983 claim as to the alleged use of force in his cell—but not as to the alleged use of force again later in the prison lobby and shower. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Heck claim and remanded for further proceedings.

Benavides Nolasco v. Crockett

Docket: 19-30646

Opinion Date: May 6, 2020

Judge: E. Grady Jolly

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

Federal courts lack jurisdiction over challenges to the denial of aliens' applications for LPR status unless and until the challenge has been exhausted in removal proceedings. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's appeal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the district court did not have jurisdiction to review the denial of plaintiff's application to USCIS for LPR status, where no removal proceedings had been initiated against him. The court held that Cardoso v. Reno, 216 F.3d 512, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that the district court lacked jurisdiction in similar circumstances, was controlling in this case.