A Backward- and Forward-Looking Assessment of the Supreme Court’s “Faithless Elector” Cases: Part One in a Two-Part Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

In this first of a two-part series of columns about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the “faithless elector” cases, Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar expresses disappointment that the majority opinion—authored by Justice Elena Kagan—and concurring opinion—by Justice Clarence Thomas—are not as well reasoned or careful as they could be. Amar points out some of the ways in which the opinions fall short, noting some of the arguments that merited more discussion, or at least more thorough consideration.

Read More

United States v. Jones

Docket: 18-3800

Opinion Date: July 13, 2020

Judge: Amalya Lyle Kearse

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute narcotics; Hobbs Act robbery and Hobbs Act conspiracy; and possession of a firearm, which had been discharged, in furtherance of the robbery. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the glove DNA evidence. In this case, the five day Daubert hearing exhaustively dissected the Forensic Statistical Tool method of DNA analysis and the district court permissibly found that two Daubert factors favored denial of defendant's motion to exclude the evidence. Even if the district court erred by admitting the Glove DNA evidence, the error was harmless. The court also held that the district court did not err by rejecting defendant's proposed jury instruction on multiple conspiracies and in denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence as to the credibility of a government witness.

Nguyen v. NewLink

Docket: 19-642

Opinion Date: July 13, 2020

Judge: John M. Walker

Areas of Law: Drugs & Biotech, Securities Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action under S.E.C. Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, following the failure of NewLink's Phase 3 clinical trial for a novel pancreatic cancer drug and the resulting decline in the market value of NewLink shares. The Second Circuit held that defendants' statements about the efficacy of their pancreatic cancer drug were puffery, not material misrepresentations. However, the court held that plaintiffs plausibly pled material misrepresentation and loss causation for defendants' statements about the scientific literature and the design of their clinical trial. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal in part regarding the 2013-2016 Assessments; vacated the dismissal in part regarding the September, March, and Enrollment statements; and remanded for further proceedings.

Millan-Hernandez v. Barr

Docket: 18-2107

Opinion Date: July 13, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of a BIA decision dismissing petitioner's appeal of an IJ's denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of her motion to suppress evidence. The court held that the agency erred by requiring that petitioner rely on her documentary evidence alone and make a prima facie showing of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation before it would conduct a suppression hearing. The court also held that, because sworn statements and the police incident report that petitioner submitted "could support" suppression under the Cotzojay standard, she was entitled to a hearing. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings.

Ordonez Azmen v. Barr

Docket: 17-982

Opinion Date: July 13, 2020

Judge: Raymond Joseph Lohier, Jr.

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's motion to remand and dismissing his appeal of the denial of his asylum and statutory withholding claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court held that the BIA failed to adequately explain its conclusion that petitioner's proposed social group of former gang members in Guatemala was not particular. Furthermore, the BIA failed to adequately explain its reasons for denying petitioner's motion to remand based on evidence of new country conditions. The court also held that under 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D), changed circumstances presenting an exception to the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application need not arise prior to the filing of the application. In this case, the BIA erred when it refused to consider petitioner's alleged changed circumstances on the ground that the change occurred while his application was pending. Therefore, the court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for reconsideration.