Latest 3 Cases: Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc., v. Whitmer (Constitutional Law), United States v. Fowler (Criminal Law), United States v. Sumlin ...

Believe All Women or Support Joe Biden?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on recent sexual assault allegations against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Colb argues that if the only choices for President are Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the sexual assault allegation against the latter will take second fiddle to the need to defeat the former and defends this perspective as not manifesting hypocrisy or indifference to sexual assault or other intimate violence.

Read More

Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc., v. Whitmer

Dockets: 18-2199, 18-2200

Opinion Date: April 21, 2020

Judge: Jeffrey S. Sutton

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The Twenty-first Amendment permits the states to regulate the sales of alcohol within their borders. Michigan is among several states with a three-tier system that forbids alcohol producers (first tier) to sell directly to retailers or consumers. Producers must sell to wholesalers within the state (second tier); those wholesalers sell exclusively to in-state retailers, who sell to consumers. Businesses at each tier must be independently owned; no one may operate more than one tier, Michigan imposes minimum prices and prohibits wholesalers from offering volume discounts or selling on credit. For liquor (not wine and beer), the state is the wholesaler in Michigan. In 2016, Michigan amended its law to allow in-state retailers to deliver directly to consumers using state-licensed “third party facilitators” or common carriers like FedEx or UPS. A wine retailer based in Fort Wayne, Indiana and Michigan wine consumers alleged that the new law violated the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The district court extended delivery rights to out-of-state retailers. Michigan obtained a stay. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The Twenty-first Amendment permits Michigan to treat in-state retailers differently from out-of-state retailers. There is no inherent right to sell intoxicating liquors by retail. Some reduction in consumer choice is inevitable in a three-tier system, which is intended to make it harder to sell alcohol.

United States v. Fowler

Dockets: 19-3071, 19-3070

Opinion Date: April 21, 2020

Judge: Donald

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2018, Fowler pled guilty to possession of child pornography and violations of the conditions of his supervised release from a previous conviction for the same. In addition to possessing child pornography, Fowler had failed drug testing, had threatened his parole officer, and had tried to harass his girlfriend to recant her testimony. The district court ordered Fowler to pay a $5,000 special assessment for possession of child pornography under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, 18 U.S.C. 3014. The court also varied upward and sentenced Fowler to the maximum statutory penalty for violating the conditions of his supervised release, imposing a 120-month sentence for possessing child pornography and a consecutive 36-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. The Sixth Circuit vacated as to the assessment and remanded for a determination of indigency. The district court committed plain error by failing to address Fowler’s ability to pay; the parties did not contemplate the $5,000 special assessment as a part of the waiver provision in the plea agreement. The court affirmed the sentence. The district court did not consider an impermissible factor (whether Fowler had actually touched a child) and Fowler had no other challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence,

United States v. Sumlin

Docket: 18-3819

Opinion Date: April 21, 2020

Judge: Bush

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Sumlin was convicted of the distribution of drugs that caused the 2015 death of Carrie Dobbins, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), which carries enhanced penalty provisions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed his convictions and his sentence to life in prison. The district court properly denied Sumlin’s suppression motion, given that the affidavit established a sufficient nexus between his drug trafficking activity and residence that was searched. The court properly admitted testimony by the victim’s sister, Kelly, who was Sumlin’s former girlfriend and had purchased drugs from him. Kelly’s testimony about Sumlin's drug-trafficking and that Sumlin was with Carrie on the day of her overdose was intrinsic proof that was relevant for providing background information and contextualizing the government’s case against Sumlin. Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Sumlin distributed the drugs that caused Carrie’s death.