Latest 2 Cases: Milam v. Harrington (Civil Rights), Redgrave v. Ducey (Labor & Employment Law)

Is Retribution Worth the Cost?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses the four purported goals of the criminal justice system—deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation—and argues that retribution may preclude rehabilitation. Colb considers whether restorative justice—wherein a victim has a conversation with the offender and talks about what he did to her and why it was wrong—might better serve the rehabilitative purpose than long prison sentences do.

Read More

The Other Epidemic

KATHRYN ROBB

Kathryn Robb, executive director of CHILD USAdvocacy, comments on a public-health crisis that is getting relatively less attention right now: the scourge of child sex abuse. To address this crisis, Robb calls for greater public awareness, stronger laws protecting children, and legislative action

Read More

Milam v. Harrington

Docket: 19-55213

Opinion Date: March 25, 2020

Judge: Andrew David Hurwitz

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

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus as time-barred. The panel held that the district court erred in its refusal to consider whether petitioner's claimed impairment was the cause of the untimeliness of the federal filing, despite his representation by state habeas counsel, and that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating whether state habeas counsel's misconduct supported equitable tolling. In this case, because the district court thought abandonment was required, it did not consider whether petitioner's state habeas counsel's misconduct qualified as an "extraordinary circumstance" under all the facts of this case. Accordingly, the panel remanded for the appropriate analysis.

Redgrave v. Ducey

Docket: 18-17150

Opinion Date: March 25, 2020

Judge: Diarmuid Fionntain O`Scannlain

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Arizona Supreme Court: Has Arizona consented to damages liability for a State agency's violation of the minimum wage or overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act?