What’s at Stake in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue? What the Equal Protection Clause Means in the Context of Classifications Based on Religiosity

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and UC Davis emeritus professor Alan E. Brownstein comment on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that raises the question whether a religiously neutral student-aid program in Montana that affords students the choice of attending religious schools violates the religion clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Amar and Brownstein express no opinion as to whether the courts’ often-expressed concerns about striking down invidiously motivated laws can be effectively overcome, but they contend that jurists who reject invalidating invidiously motivated laws must explain why reasons sufficient in other contexts are not persuasive in this case.

Read More

Boisaubin v. Blackwell

Docket: 19-6040

Opinion Date: May 14, 2020

Judge: Sanberg

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders granting the trustee's second motion to compromise controversy, denying an agreed motion to seal, and denying debtor's motion to seal. The orders relate to the trustee's settlement of debtor's sexual assault claim against the Marianist Province. The panel held that the bankruptcy court did not err by determining that debtor's sexual assault claim was part of debtor's Missouri bankruptcy estate, because the bankruptcy estate was the entity that held the contingent reversionary interest in the claim. The panel also held that the bankruptcy court did not err in approving a proposed settlement, and that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to seal.

United States v. Donahue

Docket: 19-3241

Opinion Date: May 14, 2020

Judge: Grasz

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally possessing a gun. The court held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable; the district court did not err by varying upward from the recommended sentence; and the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors including defendant's criminal history and his age. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant.