Latest 3 Cases: Brown v. Viegelahn (Bankruptcy), Alexis v. Barr (Criminal Law), United States v. Ramos Juarez (Criminal Law)

The Illusory Quest to Execute Only “The Worst of the Worst”

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—explains how a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court allowing that state to proceed with its plan to execute Harry Franklin Phillips highlights America’s illusory quest to ensure that the death penalty be precisely targeted only at “the worst of the worst.” Sarat argues that it is now time to acknowledge that the attempt to exclude clear categories of offenders from death eligibility has failed to adequately protect the dignity of those prisoners, which Justice Anthony Kennedy viewed as a central part of the Eighth Amendment.

Read More

Brown v. Viegelahn

Docket: 19-50177

Opinion Date: June 8, 2020

Judge: Leslie H. Southwick

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy

After debtor filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13, the trustee objected to confirmation of the plan. The bankruptcy court agreed to confirm the plan only if debtor chose one of two non-statutory conditions. The first option would require debtor to agree to divert all his disposable income for the first seven months to pay the unsecured creditors, and the second would incorporate into the confirmation order what is known as the Molina language. Debtor chose the Molina language. The court held that, unless debtor's plan fell short of the 11 U.S.C. 1325(a) criteria, the court was required to confirm the plan, subject to subsection 1325(b). The court analyzed the claimed shortcomings under section 1325(a) and rejected them. On de novo review, the court held that debtor's plan complied with 1325 (b)(1)(A), and the bankruptcy court was not prohibited by that section from confirming the plan. The court further held that imposing the Molina language was not necessary or appropriate to carry out any part of the Bankruptcy Code identified in the appeal. Finally, the court held that the Molina language violates section 1329. Accordingly, the court vacated the confirmation order and remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

Alexis v. Barr

Docket: 18-60748

Opinion Date: June 8, 2020

Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr.

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's decision finding petitioner removable under Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and denying petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Fifth Circuit held that petitioner failed to show a realistic probability that his conviction for possession of cocaine under the Texas statute criminalizes a broader range of conduct than the federal generic definition for cocaine. The court also held that petitioner failed to demonstrate error in the BIA's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review of the final order of removal and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petition for review of his eligibility for relief and protection.

United States v. Ramos Juarez

Docket: 19-20535

Opinion Date: June 8, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal and dismissed his original appeal. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because defendant failed to demonstrate either excusable neglect or good cause for untimely filing his notice of appeal. In this case, the district court, immediately after imposing defendant's sentence, orally advised him of his right to appeal and of his right to counsel on appeal; expressed confidence that his present counsel would advise him of his appeal rights; and signed and gave to defendant a written notice of his appeal rights.