Latest 2 Cases: Bradley v. Ackal (Civil Procedure), United States v. Barnes (Criminal Law)

What Should Democrats Do About Republicans’ Insistence on Lining Their Own Pockets With the Stimulus Plan?

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the ongoing negotiations in Congress over the stimulus bill that would purportedly start to address the present economic crisis. Buchanan argues that while Democrats are right to try to stop Republicans from writing a huge unrestricted corporate handout into the bill, they will have to agree to something quickly—and the sooner the better.

Read More

Will Coronavirus Stop America from Carrying Out Executions?

AUSTIN SARAT

Guest columnist Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—points out one unusual effect of the COVID-19 pandemic: deferring the executions of death row inmates. Sarat observes that while past pandemics have not affected the rate at which states have executed inmates, last week the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted 60-day stays in the execution sentences of two men, and other states seem poised to follow suit.

Read More

Bradley v. Ackal

Docket: 18-31052

Opinion Date: March 23, 2020

Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court's order denying vacatur of sealing orders. The court held that the decision denying vacatur of the sealing orders is appealable under the collateral order doctrine, because the decision is conclusive; the decision addresses important and unsettled questions of law concerning the Louisiana Public Records Law and appellants' First Amendment and common law rights to access settlement agreement information contained in a sealed court recording and sealed minutes, particularly where a minor's privacy interests are involved; the subject of the decision is completely separable from the merits of the litigation; and the decision would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment. On the merits, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying appellants' motion for vacatur by relying on erroneous conclusions of law and misapplying the law to the facts. In this case, the settlement agreement involves public officials or parties of a public nature and matters of legitimate public concern, and it does not appear that the district court weighed as a factor in favor of disclosure the presumption of the public's right of access.

United States v. Barnes

Docket: 18-60497

Opinion Date: March 23, 2020

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and waived his right to challenge his conviction and sentence. After defendant was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), that the ACCA's residual clause was unconstitutional. Defendant filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, which the district court dismissed. The Fifth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal and held that defendant's section 2255 motion was barred by his collateral-review waiver in his plea agreement. The court held that precedent foreclosed defendant's contention that a defendant cannot waive a right that is unknown at the time that the waiver provision is executed, and that he cannot waive his right to challenge an illegal or unconstitutional sentence.