What’s at Stake in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue? What the Equal Protection Clause Means in the Context of Classifications Based on Religiosity

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and UC Davis emeritus professor Alan E. Brownstein comment on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that raises the question whether a religiously neutral student-aid program in Montana that affords students the choice of attending religious schools violates the religion clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Amar and Brownstein express no opinion as to whether the courts’ often-expressed concerns about striking down invidiously motivated laws can be effectively overcome, but they contend that jurists who reject invalidating invidiously motivated laws must explain why reasons sufficient in other contexts are not persuasive in this case.

Read More

Hutchison v. Mcarty

Citation: 2020 Ark. 190

Opinion Date: May 14, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the circuit court denying the motion filed by Asa Hutchinson, the Governor of the State of Arkansas, to dismiss an action filed by Appellee, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction, holding that the complaint was barred by sovereign immunity. Appellee filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of the Fair Sentencing of Minors Act of 2017 (FSMA), codified at Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-621, alleging that the FSMA denied him equal protection and due process of law, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishments, and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The circuit court dismissed the action with respect to all defendants except Hutchinson in his official capacity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that Appellee pleaded sufficient facts to overcome Hutchinson's defense of sovereign immunity.

Walther v. Wilson

Citation: 2020 Ark. 194

Opinion Date: May 14, 2020

Judge: Karen R. Baker

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law

In this appeal returning to the Supreme Court for a third time challenging an award of attorney's fees to Plaintiff in his illegal exaction lawsuit that successfully challenged the constitutionality of certain legislative acts (Acts), the Supreme Court held that the circuit court properly awarded attorney's fees. In his illegal exaction complaint Plaintiff alleged that the challenged Acts were unconstitutional. The trial court ultimately granted judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The parties then began sparring over attorney's fees. The circuit court eventually awarded attorney's fees but denied Plaintiff's request for prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $323,266 in attorney's fees and did not err when it denied Plaintiff prejudgment interest.

Anderson v. Kelley

Citation: 2020 Ark. 197

Opinion Date: May 14, 2020

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that there was no error. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court correctly denied Appellant's claim that he was being illegally detained because (1) by raising the same allegations that Appellant had already considered, Appellant abused the writ; (2) Appellant did not establish that there was error in the judgment of conviction that deprived the trial court of jurisdiction in the matter or rendered the judgment invalid; and (3) the fact that the circuit court permitted Appellant to proceed with his habeas petition without paying a filing fee was not tantamount to issuance of the writ.

Makkali v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 188

Opinion Date: May 14, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201 to -208, holding that because Appellant had already raised the same issue in an earlier petition, the circuit court did not err when it declined to grant the writ. In 1992, Appellant was found guilty of rape and theft of a van and sentenced to forty years' imprisonment. In 2015, Appellant filed his first habeas petition seeking testing on vaginal swabs of the victim. The circuit court denied relief, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In 2018, Appellant filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus again seeking DNA testing of a vaginal swab recovered from the victim. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where Appellant already raised his claim to the circuit court and it was rejected on appeal, he was not entitled to relief on the same allegation in the subsequent petition.

Mills v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 193

Opinion Date: May 14, 2020

Judge: Karen R. Baker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking scientific testing of evidence from his criminal case, holding that Appellant failed to establish the timeliness of the petition or its merit. Appellant was found guilty in 1994 of capital murder with the underlying offenses of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In 2019, Appellant filed the instant petition for scientific testing of evidence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201 to -208. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact-finder would find him guilty of the murder of the victim based on any specific testing; (2) Appellant did not satisfy any of the factors that would establish that his petition was timely; and (3) the trial court was not obligated to hold a hearing on the petition.