The Simple Message of Tolerance That Eludes President Trump

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies calls upon President Trump to condemn the rise of anti-Asian calumny and violence and contrasts Trump’s actions today with those of President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks. Margulies points out that immediately after 9/11, President Bush defined national identity in the language of equality and tolerance, stressing that Muslims and Arab-Americans were not the enemy.

Read More

The Framers Would Have Been Appalled but Unsurprised by the President’s Failure to Get the COVID-19 Crisis Under Control: They Would Tell Him to Get Moving Now

MARCI A. HAMILTON

Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, criticizes the Trump administration’s failure to adequately handle the national coordination of efforts to get the COVID-19 crisis under control. Hamilton points out that the Framers of the Constitution anticipated that the country would face emergencies and intentionally consolidated power in a single President to make decisions to unify and protect the nation.

Read More

Ommen v. MilliMan, Inc.

Docket: 18-0335

Opinion Date: April 3, 2020

Judge: Christensen

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Contracts

In this appeal from the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration the Supreme Court held that the court-appointed liquidator of a now-insolvent health insurer pursuing common law tort claims against a third-party contractor is bound by an arbitration provision in a preinsolvency agreement between the health insurer and the third-party contractor. Prior to its insolvency, the health insurance provider entered into an agreement with a third-party contractor for consulting services. The provider was later declared insolvent and placed into liquidation. Plaintiff, the provider's court-appointed liquidator, brought an action against the contractor, asserting common law tort damages. The contractor filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration on the grounds that the parties' agreement contained an arbitration clause. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the arbitration provision did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the liquidator was bound by the arbitration provision because the liquidator stood in the shoes of the provider; (2) the liquidator could not use Iowa Code 507C.21(k) to disavow a preinsolvency agreement that the contractor already performed; and (3) the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not permit reverse preemption of the Federal Arbitration Act when the liquidator asserts common law tort damages against a third-party contractor.

State v. Ross

Docket: 19-0939

Opinion Date: April 3, 2020

Judge: Christensen

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's guilty plea to possessing a tool with the intent to use it in the unlawful removal of a theft detection device under Iowa Code 714.7B(3), holding that there was no factual basis to support Defendant's guilty plea to this charge. Defendant's conviction arose from his act of using bolt cutters to cut the padlock off of a steel cable wrapped around a riding lawn mower on display outside of a Mills Fleet Farm. Defendant pled guilty violating section 714.7B(3). On appeal, Defendant argued that the padlock-steel cable combination device he cut with bolt cutters was not a "theft detective device" under section 714.7B, and therefore, his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty to this charge.The Supreme Court agreed and vacated Defendant's guilty plea, holding (1) the padlock-steel cable combination did not constitute a "theft detective device" under the statute, and therefore, there was no factual basis to support Defendant's guilty plea; and (2) Defendant's counsel was ineffective for allowing Defendant to plead guilty.

State v. Folkers

Docket: 18-1999

Opinion Date: April 3, 2020

Judge: McDonald

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of child endangerment, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. During trial, the State was required to prove Defendant had custody of her child and that she knowingly acted in a manner that created a substantial risk to her child's health or safety. The district court concluded that the State met its burden of production and persuasion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's failure to remove her child from a physical environment that caused a risk of fire was sufficient to establish that Defendant had knowledge she had created or allowed her child to remain in a physical environment that posed a substantial risk to her child's physical health and safety.