What About the Bar Exam After the 2020 Dust Settles?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on some of the questions commentators and analysts are, or will soon be, asking—specifically why we have bar exams for legal licensure, and, assuming we retain them, what they should look like going forward. Amar observes the limitations of the so-called diploma privilege advocated by some and suggests that states adopt greater interstate uniformity in their bar exams, shift toward more performance (as opposed to memorization) exams, and move away from being so time pressured.

Read More

Serrano v. Customs and Border Patrol

Docket: 18-50977

Opinion Date: September 16, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CBP and others, alleging constitutional violations after his truck and its contents were seized at the United States-Mexico border. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and denied as moot plaintiff's motion to certify the class. Given the broad allegations in the complaint and the court's balancing of the Mathews factors, the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for a procedural due process violation. In this case, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the constitutional inadequacy of the existing procedures, nor has he shown that the available processes are unavailable or patently inadequate. Furthermore, the court's conclusion that the additional process plaintiff seeks is not constitutionally required in this context is consistent with United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim that the bond requirement violates due process. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of plaintiff's due process class claims for failure to state a claim, and affirmed the denial of his motion for class certification as moot. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's Bivens claim where plaintiff failed to set forth any facts specifically identifying what Defendant Espinoza or any unnamed Customs officers did to violate his rights.

Agredano v. State Farm Lloyds

Docket: 19-50656

Opinion Date: September 16, 2020

Judge: Catharina Haynes

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against State Farm after it denied their claim for windstorm damage to their home. The district court granted summary judgment for State Farm on various causes of action. Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was presented to the jury where the jury presented a verdict in plaintiffs' favor. After the district court originally granted plaintiffs relief on their request for attorney's fees and statutory interest, it then ruled that the failure to specifically plead relief under Texas Insurance Code 542.060 (the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act or "TPPCA") barred the requested relief and entered judgment only in the amount of the breach of contract damages found by the jury, together with regular pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the district court erred in holding that Chavez v. State Farm Lloyds, 746 F. App'x 337 (5th Cir. 2018), barred plaintiffs' claims for the 18 percent penalty and attorney's fees under Chapter 542. The court held that subsequent Texas Supreme Court cases make clear that Chavez is no longer good law. Rather, the Texas Supreme Court recently stated that nothing in the TPPCA would excuse an insurer from liability for TPPCA damages if it was liable under the terms of the policy but delayed payment beyond the applicable statutory deadline.

STP Nuclear Operating Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

Dockets: 19-60071, 19-60152

Opinion Date: September 16, 2020

Judge: Edith H. Jones

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

After the Board certified two groups of employees of STP to join a collective bargaining unit represented by the Union, STP refused to recognize and bargain with the Union on the basis that its "unit supervisors" and "maintenance supervisors" are excluded from the bargaining unit pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act. The Fifth Circuit reversed the Board's bargaining order and denied enforcement, holding that the Board's conclusions that the employees are not statutory supervisors are premised on errors of law and lack substantial evidence. In this case, the Board lacked substantial evidence to find that unit supervisors do not "responsibly direct" work and maintenance supervisors do not "assign" work. Therefore, STP's unit supervisors and maintenance supervisors are statutory supervisors under 29 U.S.C. 152(11).