The “When” of Chevron: The Missed Opportunity of County of Maui

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, DANIEL FOLSOM

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and rising 3L Daniel Folsom comment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, in which the Court interpreted a provision of the Clean Water. Estreicher and Folsom argue that the case presented an opportunity to clarify the murky question of when the Chevron doctrine applies, yet the Court avoided answering that question.

Read More

The Unnecessary Protection of Qualified Immunity

JOANNA C. SCHWARTZ, SETH STOUGHTON

UCLA law professor Joanna C. Schwartz and South Carolina law professor Seth W. Stoughton address some of the arguments commonly asserted to support qualified immunity, the doctrine that shields police officers from civil liability for constitutional violations. Schwartz and Stoughton argue that eliminating qualified immunity should not affect police decision-making and that existing Supreme Court doctrine gives police officers plenty of leeway to make mistakes without violating the Constitution. Because qualified immunity applies only to unreasonable actions by police officers, eliminating or substantially restricting it should not a chilling effect on police officers’ ability or willingness to respond to critical incidents.

Read More

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Kurbanov

Docket: 19-1124

Opinion Date: June 26, 2020

Judge: Roger L. Gregory

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Copyright, Intellectual Property

Plaintiffs, twelve record companies, filed suit against defendant alleging claims for five separate violations of the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs are Delaware corporations, with eight having their principal place of business in New York, three in California, and one in Florida. Defendant, born in Rostov-on-Don, Russia, is a Russian citizen who still resides in Rostov-on-Don. Defendant owns and operates websites that offer visitors a stream-ripping service through which audio tracks may be extracted from videos available on various platforms and converted into a downloadable format. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that defendant's contacts sufficiently show he purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Virginia. Therefore, the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1) is appropriate if it is constitutionally reasonable. Because the district court did not perform a reasonability analysis in the first instance, the court remanded for the district court to do so.

United States v. Gutierrez

Dockets: 18-4656, 18-4665, 18-4855

Opinion Date: June 26, 2020

Judge: G. Steven Agee

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Defendants Gutierrez, Baxton, and Gilmore's convictions and sentences for various charges related to their membership in the United Blood Nation (UBN) gang. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by empaneling an anonymous jury; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying recusal; the district court did not abuse its discretion in regard to jury selection; the district court properly denied Gilmore's motion to suppress; the evidence was sufficient to support defendants' convictions for conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue a special jury verdict form; and the district court properly instructed the jury. The court upheld the district court's denial of Gilmore's motion for a new trial; held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's civil forfeiture findings; and held that defendants' respective sentences were not procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr

Docket: 18-2233

Opinion Date: June 26, 2020

Judge: Pamela Harris

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's final order of removal affirming the IJ's denial of his application for asylum and other forms of relief. Petitioner claimed that he was persecuted and fears future persecution on account of his family ties. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the petition for review in part, holding that petitioner's jurisdictional argument -- that because his initial notice to appear did not include a time or date for a hearing, the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceeding -- is squarely foreclosed by the court's recent opinion in United States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350, 355 (4th Cir. 2019), which was issued only after the parties' briefing in this case. The court denied the petitioner for review in part, holding that substantial evidence supports the determination of the IJ and BIA that petitioner has not met his burden of showing eligibility for asylum. In this case, the record does not compel the conclusion that family membership was at least one central reason why petitioner was threatened by his brother's attackers. Therefore, petitioner cannot satisfy the nexus requirement and is not eligible for asylum.