Latest 2 Cases: United States v. Burden (Criminal Law), In re: Synchrony Financial Securities Litigation (Securities Law)

The Upside-Down Treatment of Religious Exceptions Cases in the Supreme Court

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week to reject an emergency application from the State of Alabama to lift a stay on the execution of Willie B. Smith III. Professor Dorf observes the Court’s unusual alignment of votes in the decision and argues that, particularly as reflected by the recent COVID-19 decisions, the liberal and conservative Justices have essentially swapped places from the seminal 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith, which established that the First Amendment does not guarantee a right to exceptions from neutral laws of general applicability.

Read More

United States v. Burden

Docket: 20-1059

Opinion Date: February 16, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018. Defendant was one of the leaders of a Norwalk, Connecticut-based organization that trafficked powder and crack cocaine. In 2003, defendant was convicted of multiple drug- and racketeering-related crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court agreed with the district court that defendant is ineligible for First Step Act relief because his existing sentence was imposed in accordance with the relevant terms of the Act. In this case, defendant's 2015 plenary resentence, the operative sentence in this appeal, was imposed after the effective date of the crack cocaine provisions in section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, and the district court sentenced defendant in accordance with these provisions at the 2015 hearing.

In re: Synchrony Financial Securities Litigation

Docket: 20-1352

Opinion Date: February 16, 2021

Judge: Pooler

Areas of Law: Securities Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Synchrony Financial and others involved in a December 2017 promissory note offering are liable for materially misrepresenting the scope and degree of changes to the company's underwriting practices beginning in mid-2016 and the impact these changes had on its business relationships with retail companies. The district court dismissed the case in its entirety. With one exception, the Second Circuit agreed with the district court that, from the face of the amended complaint, many allegations were too vague to constitute material misrepresentations on which a reasonable investor would rely. The court also agreed that many alleged material misstatements were properly contextualized by the total mix of publicly available information and appropriately dismissed. However, in regard to one alleged misstatement claiming that a corporate representative of Synchrony Financial publicly stated that the company had received no "pushback" from retail partners during negotiations, the court found that the alleged statement was sufficiently specific to plausibly allege a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court explained that because the alleged statement purported to make a factual assertion about events that had already transpired or were currently in progress, it is materially distinct from the other allegations. Furthermore, particularized allegations in the amended complaint explain how and why this statement may have been false at the time it was made.