The Future of Faithless Electors and the National Popular Vote Compact: Part Two in a Two-Part Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

In this second of a two-part series of columns about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the “faithless elector cases, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar describes some good news that we may glean from those cases. Specifically, Amar points out that states have many ways of reducing elector faithlessness, and he lists three ways in which the Court’s decision paves the way for advances in the National Popular Vote (NPV) Interstate Compact movement.

Read More

Impoverishing Women: Supreme Court Upholds Trump Administration’s Religious and Moral Exemptions to Contraceptive Mandate

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the Trump administration’s religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Grossman provides a brief history of the conflict over the growing politicization of contraception in the United States and argues that the exemptions at issue in this case should never have been promulgated in the first place because they have no support in science or public policy.

Read More

United States v. Durham

Docket: 18-3283

Opinion Date: July 17, 2020

Judge: Scudder

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 1997, Durham received a 35-year sentence for a federal drug offense that was reduced to 20 years after amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Durham was released in 2015. In 2018, he violated the terms of his supervised release by domestic battery, unauthorized travel, making false statements to a probation officer, and theft of over $500. Dunham denied having assaulted his ex-girlfriend, despite the testimony of a third party witness. He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, about twice the high end of the guidelines range. The district court emphasized the gravity of Durham’s abuse of his ex-girlfriend and stated: “The guideline allows for an upward variance if he received a reduction. He has received two reductions.” Durham’s attorney responded: “That’s a point well-taken, Judge.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Dunham’s argument that he was being punished for the Guidelines amendments. Read as a whole, the sentencing transcript indicates that the district court selected the 30-month revocation sentence by applying the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and, most especially, considering the “nature and circumstances” of Durham’s supervised release violations, foremost the violent assault of his former girlfriend. The district court could reasonably conclude that Durham “squandered” his early release.

Kotaska v. Federal Express Corp.

Docket: 19-2730

Opinion Date: July 17, 2020

Judge: St. Eve

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

FedEx twice fired Kotaska because she could not lift up to 75 pounds. The first time, she was limited to lifting only 60 pounds after a shoulder injury. Eventually, her condition improved so that she could lift 75 pounds to her waist. A FedEx supervisor rehired her “oě the books.” Within three, FedEx discovered her capabilities above the waist remained severely limited and dismissed her again. Kotaska filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101–12213. The district court granted FedEx summary judgment because Kotaska had not shown she was a qualięed individual or that the second dismissal was in retaliation for her complaints about the first. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The parties agree that lifting packages, including above the waist and shoulders, is an essential function (really the essential function) of a handler. Kotaska did not dispute FedEx’s judgment that a handler must be able to lift up to 75 pounds by herself and up to 150 pounds with help. Whatever precise weight a handler might need to lift above the waist or shoulders, no reasonable fact-finder could place that weight within Kotaska’s stringent medical restrictions.