How Not to Criticize the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf responds to three broad-based objections by Republican opponents to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021: (1) that the already-recovering economy doesn’t need stimulus; (2) that many of the Act’s provisions have nothing to do with COVID-19; and (3) that there will be waste, fraud, and abuse. Professor Dorf explains why these objections ring hollow and argues that while the Act is not perfect legislation and will likely face challenges in implementation, it is a much better option than anything Republicans were offering.

Read More

United States v. Austin

Docket: 19-2257

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Katzmann

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The First Circuit denied Defendant's appeal of his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(a)(2), holding that the district court did not commit plain error by accepting Defendant's guilty plea and in denying his motion to suppress. Following Defendant's plea, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), under which the government must prove that the defendant knew he had the relevant status prohibiting possession. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) under Rehaif, the district court committed plain error during his plea colloquy by failing to inform him that the government was required to prove that he knew he was prohibited from possessing firearms; and (2) the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the search warrant issued for Defendant's residence was supported by probable cause; and (2) the district court did not plainly err by accepting Defendant's guilty plea.

United States v. Torres-Santana

Docket: 19-1087

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Kermit Victor Lipez

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's eighteen-month sentence imposed for violating the conditions of his supervised release by committing a new crime, holding that Defendant had not suffered any prejudice from the delay in his supervised release revocation hearing. The revocation hearing concluded thirty months after the the United States Probation Office petitioned the district court to revoke supervised release and eight months after Defendant was taken into federal custody. On appeal, Defendant argued that his revocation hearing was unreasonably delayed in violation of his rights under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 and the due process clause of the United States Constitution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's claim failed on the prejudice prong.

United States v. Concepcion

Docket: 19-2025

Opinion Date: March 15, 2021

Judge: Selya

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Defendant's motion for resentencing, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. In 2008, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base. While Defendant was serving his 228-month term of immurement Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, which reduced the penalties for most federal crimes involving crack cocaine. Thereafter, Defendant filed his motion for resentencing. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentencing court weighed the proper factors and made a reasonable judgment.

Cuesta-Rojas v. Garland

Docket: 20-1302

Opinion Date: March 15, 2021

Judge: David J. Barron

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law, Labor & Employment Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of Petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that substantial evidence did not support the BIA's decision. The immigration judge (IJ) determined that Petitioner was not a credible witness and therefore found that he had failed to establish his burden of proof with respect to his application. The BIA dismissed Petitioner's appeal, thus declining to remand the case in light of new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's decision, holding that the IJ's adverse credibility finding was not supportable.

Carrasquillo-Serrano v. Municipality of Canovanas

Docket: 18-1701

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Jeffrey R. Howard

Areas of Law: Health Law, Personal Injury

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the Municipality of Canovanas's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to overturn the default judgment entered for Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' claims brought under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. 1395dd, and Puerto Rico law, holding that Canovanas's arguments were unavailing. Plaintiffs, Julio Carrasquillo-Serrano (Carrasquillo) and his family, alleged that Canovanas owned, operated, and/or managed CDT of Canovanas, the emergency medical facility that provided medical services to Carrasquillo and that Carrasquillo was permanently disabled as a result of Defendants' negligence. The district court entered judgment for Plaintiffs. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the judgment was not void for lack of jurisdiction; (2) service of process was sufficient; (3) a statutory limitation of liability is an affirmative defense; and (4) the district court had jurisdiction to determine the merits of Plaintiffs' EMTALA claims.