Trump Swings His Wrecking Ball at Social Security

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

Neil H. Buchanan—UF law professor and economist—dispels some common misunderstandings about the future of Social Security but explains why President Trump’s recent comments are cause for concern. Buchanan explains why, contrary to claims by reporters and politicians, Social Security is not at the brink of insolvency, but points out that if Trump were to permanently eliminate payroll taxes, that would doom the program on which tens of millions of retirees depend.

Read More

Jacobsen v. Florida Secretary of State

Docket: 19-14552

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: William Holcombe Pryor, Jr.

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

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its original opinion in this appeal and substituted in its place the following opinion. At issue is whether several voters and organizations may challenge in federal court a law that governs the order in which candidates appear on the ballot in Florida's general elections. Plaintiffs alleged that the law violates their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because candidates who appear first on the ballot enjoy a "windfall vote" from a small number of voters who select the first candidate on a ballot solely because of that candidate’s position of primacy. The district court permanently enjoined the Secretary—and the 67 county Supervisors of Elections, none of whom were made parties to this lawsuit—from preparing ballots in accordance with the law. The court held that the voters and organizations lack standing to sue the Secretary because none of them proved an injury in fact. In this case, any injury they might suffer is neither fairly traceable to the Secretary nor redressable by a judgment against her because she does not enforce the challenged law. Rather, the Supervisors—county officials independent of the Secretary—are responsible for placing candidates on the ballot in the order the law prescribes. However, the district court lacked authority to enjoin those officials in this suit, so it was powerless to provide redress. The court also held, in the alternative, that the voters and organizations' complaint presents a nonjusticiable political question. The court explained that complaints of unfair partisan advantage based on the order in which candidates appear on the ballot bear all the hallmarks of a political question outside the court's competence to resolve. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Cantu v. City of Dothan

Docket: 18-15071

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: Edward Earl Carnes

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

After Robert Earl Lawrence was shot and killed by a police officer while trying to return a stray dog to an animal shelter, the executor of his estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and asserting a state law claim for assault and battery. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officer, holding that, taking the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that the officer violated Lawrence's clearly established constitutional rights by shooting him. In this case, Lawrence was not committing a dangerous felony, or even a non-dangerous one. Rather, he was just trying to drop off at an animal shelter a stray dog he had found in a parking lot earlier that day. The court explained that the underlying crime for which he was being arrested was, at worst, driving without a license, the maximum punishment for which is a $100 fine; the only flight he engaged in was running around his car on two occasions when he managed to break loose from the officers who were trying to handcuff him; he did resist being handcuffed and arrested, but not violently; while being held by an officer who outweighed him by 75 pounds, another officer tased him at least twice in the abdomen; when he grabbed at the taser in an attempt to avoid being tased again, he and two of the three officers struggled over it, but Lawrence never gained control of it; and, at that point, the officer who had been tasing him let go of the taser, drew her firearm, and fatally shot him without warning, all in the space of three seconds. Therefore, the officer that shot Lawrence is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity or based on state agent immunity.