How the Coronavirus Crisis Reveals Weaknesses Not Just in America’s Public Health Systems But in Our Constitutional Doctrines

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains how the current crisis caused by the novel coronavirus reveals flaws in both America’s public health system and also in the country’s constitutional doctrines. Responding in part to Professor Michael C. Dorf’s column of March 15 urging uniform federal restrictions, Amar expresses doubt as to whether Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution permit imposition of such a lockdown in the first place.

Read More

Chen v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.

Docket: 18-3087

Opinion Date: March 31, 2020

Judge: Chin

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Consumer Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' second amended complaint alleging that Dunkin Donuts deceptively marketed two of its trademarked products -- the Angus Steak & Egg Breakfast Sandwich and the Angus Steak & Egg Wake-Up Wrap. Plaintiffs alleged that through representations made in labeling and television advertisements, Dunkin Donuts deceived consumers into believing that the Products contained an "intact" piece of meat when the Products actually contained a ground beef patty with multiple additives. The district court dismissed claims based on lack of general personal jurisdiction in New York and failure to state a claim. The court held that, under New York law, the act of registering to do business under section 1301 of the New York Business Corporation Law does not constitute consent to general personal jurisdiction in New York. The court rejected plaintiffs' arguments that Dunkin Donuts' contacts with New York were sufficient to subject it to general personal jurisdiction in the state, and agreed with the district court that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible violation of sections 349 and 350.

Manning v. Barr

Docket: 17-2182

Opinion Date: March 31, 2020

Judge: Pooler

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for deferral or removal under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner contended that, if he was removed to Jamaica, he would be killed in retaliation for his earlier cooperation with law enforcement. The court held that the jurisdictional provision in 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C), which limits this court's jurisdiction, applies only to cases where the IJ has found a petitioner removable based on covered criminal activity, and that it does not apply where a petitioner's order of removal is based solely on unlawful presence. The court also held that the IJ and BIA discounted petitioner's credible testimony without proper explanation, failed to consider substantial and material evidence that petitioner is likely to be killed if removed to Jamaica, and erroneously placed a burden on petitioner to prove he could not internally relocate in order to avoid torture. Accordingly, the court remanded petitioner's application for deferral of removal for further proceedings.

United States v. Scott

Docket: 18-163

Opinion Date: March 31, 2020

Judge: Pooler

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's vacatur of defendant's sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act and the district court's decision to resentence defendant to time served. The court held that the district court properly concluded that New York first-degree manslaughter is not a predicate crime of violence because it can be committed by omission and therefore without the use of force, as defined in Curtis Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010). The court also held that New York first-degree manslaughter does not match any of the generic offenses enumerated in the Career Offender Guideline. Therefore, defendant did not have the requisite predicate offenses and could not be sentenced under the Career Offender Guidelines.