Who May/Should Preside Over Former President Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone argue that the constitutional ambiguity over who may preside over former President Trump’s second impeachment trial supports the conclusion that the Senate should ask Chief Justice John Roberts to preside. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone explain why other people—such as Senate President Pro Tempore, the Vice President, and any other senator—are not ideal options because of real or perceived conflicts.

Read More

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. U.S. Energy Development Corp.

Docket: 19-50646

Opinion Date: February 3, 2021

Judge: Edith Hollan Jones

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Commercial Law

Texas and Oklahoma oil and gas producers challenge the bankruptcy court's grant in part and denial in part of Deutsche Bank's motion for partial summary judgment in a lien priority dispute. The competing security interests arose out of proceeds from the sale of oil that debtor purchased from appellants before declaring bankruptcy. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's order, holding that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that the warranty of title did not waive the Producers' rights to assert a lien under either Texas UCC 9.343 or the Oklahoma Lien Act; because the warranties did not waive Producers' claims to proceeds in the hands of debtor, the Bank's reliance is misplaced on cases where producers attempted to collect from purchasers downstream of the first purchasers; and following Fishback Nursery, Inc. v. PNC Bank, N.A., 920 F.3d 932, 939-40 (5th Cir. 2019), Delaware law governs the competing priorities under either Texas choice of law or the federal independent judgment test. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's conclusion that the Bank's interests in the disputed collateral prime any interests held by the Texas Producers. Furthermore, the bankruptcy court correctly dismissed the Producers' affirmative defenses of estoppel, unclean hands, and waiver.

Mendez v. Trustmark National Bank

Docket: 19-11131

Opinion Date: February 3, 2021

Judge: Leslie Southwick

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

In a case arising out of the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by R. Allen Stanford and others, Stanford investors filed suit against defendants who provided banking services to Stanford. Appellants, who moved to intervene, are also Stanford investors and investment funds that purchased assignments of claims from Stanford investors. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of intervention as of right, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by balancing the Stallworth factors in determining that the motion to intervene was untimely. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a delay of 18 months weighed against timeliness; the existing parties would be prejudiced in the form of costly and inefficient discovery, as well as delay of final distribution; and the denial of intervention will not exclude appellants from recovery even if it were to prejudice them in some way. Finally, there are no unusual circumstances militating for or against timeliness. The court dismissed the appeal of the denial of permissive intervention for lack of jurisdiction where the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the request for permissive intervention was untimely. The court rejected the motion to strike the personal jurisdiction argument.

Tampico v. Martinez

Docket: 19-20555

Opinion Date: February 3, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claims because they are barred by the statute of limitations. In this case, plaintiff filed suit against defendant, in his individual capacity, alleging that plaintiff's property had been illegally seized after plaintiff's arrest. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to file his equitable claim within six years, making his current lawsuit untimely. Even if plaintiff's Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion was timely, the court explained that that has no bearing on the outcome of this case. Because the court held that plaintiff's equitable claim is time-barred, the court need not address plaintiff's suspicions about whether the government still possesses his property or whether defendant's sworn affidavit is admissible evidence to prove that plaintiff's property had been destroyed. Because Bivens actions are limited by a two-year statute of limitations, plaintiff's Bivens action is also time-barred. Finally, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances do not exist in this case to warrant the appointment of counsel.

United States v. Winters

Docket: 20-30138

Opinion Date: February 3, 2021

Judge: Leslie Southwick

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to reduce defendant's sentence under the First Step Act. The court held that defendant's dual-object conspiracy offense under 21 U.S.C. 846, which was committed before August 3, 2010, is a covered offense under Section 404(a) of the First Step Act. The court also held that the district court had statutory authority under Section 404 to reduce defendant's sentence from 233 months to 180 months. Finally, the court held that neither of Section 404(c)'s limitations apply. Therefore, defendant is eligible for relief under the First Step Act.

Rodriguez Solorzano v. Mayorkas

Docket: 19-50220

Opinion Date: February 3, 2021

Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

An alien who entered the United States without being "inspected and admitted or paroled" may not have his status adjusted to lawful permanent resident by virtue of obtaining Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Petitioner, a native of Honduras, challenged the USCIS's denial of his application to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status in district court. The government moved to dismiss, but the district court denied the motion and remanded to the agency. The government appealed. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the district court incorrectly interpreted and applied the relevant immigration statutes. The court held that the text of the relevant statutory provisions confirms that TPS does not cure the bar to status adjustment in 8 U.S.C. 1255. The court rejected petitioner's and amici's contention that because a TPS recipient is considered as "being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant," section 1255(a)'s requirement that an alien be inspected and admitted is satisfied. The court concluded that this contention failed because granting TPS does not constitute an admission under section 1255(a); granting TPS does not constitute a waiver of the admission requirement in section 1255; and being "admissible" under section 1254a does not create an alternative method for satisfying the requirement that one be admitted under section 1255. In this case, the court concluded that TPS does not excuse petitioner from the requirement of being inspected and admitted into the United States. The court explained that, because petitioner was never lawfully admitted, he cannot now seek to adjust his status under section 1255(a).