What Else Might Senate Republicans Have Done, Given That They’re Too Scared to Do the Right Thing?

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers whether there is anything Senate Republicans might have done, instead of outright acquitting President Trump, to maintain the role of Congress as a coequal branch with the Executive. Buchanan proposes that under the text of the impeachment clauses, those Republican senators could have voted for removal—the necessary result of finding wrongdoing—but permitted Trump to run again in the election later this year.

Read More

United States v. Chavez-Diaz

Docket: 18-50391

Opinion Date: February 5, 2020

Judge: Bress

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Ninth Circuit held that defendant waived his right to appeal his equal protection and due process claims by entering an unconditional guilty plea. Therefore, the panel reversed the district court's holding to the contrary and remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal. In this case, defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate judge to one count of illegal entry into the United States, but then attempted to raise on appeal to the district judge certain due process and equal protection challenges to the handling of his prosecution in the Southern District of California. The panel held that the district court misinterpreted Class v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 798 (2018), and that the Menna-Blackledge exception -- which allows for constitutionally-based appeals, despite an unconditional guilty plea, where the appeal, if successful, would mean that the government cannot prosecute the defendant at all -- did not apply here. Finally, the panel rejected defendant's argument that if his appeal is held to be waived, his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. Accordingly, the panel remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal.

Vargas v. Howell

Docket: 18-15513

Opinion Date: February 5, 2020

Judge: Miller

Areas of Law: Legal Ethics

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's award of attorney's fees after settlement in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The district court awarded just 10 percent of the fees plaintiff claimed. The panel held that, given the size of the 90 percent cut in attorney's fees, the district court's explanation was inadequate. The panel reaffirmed its prior decisions holding that a significant reduction requires a more thorough explanation, and concluded that the district court did not adequately justify the dramatic cut that it imposed here. Therefore, the panel remanded for a recalculation of the number of hours reasonably attributable to counsel. The panel also held that the district court erred by denying fees for work performed by two former attorneys on the basis that their law firm lacked standing to seek fees for work they performed at a different firm. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the hours and rates of the other attorneys that worked on the case.