They Are Still Teachers

LESLIE C. GRIFFIN

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin comments on the oral argument the U.S. Supreme Court heard on Monday in the combined cases of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel, which bring before the Court the question of the ministerial exception. Griffin explains that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense that keeps the facts of a case from ever going to a judge or a jury and argues that a broad construction of the exception—as advocated by the religious employers in those cases—would be devastating to the careers of thousands of Americans teaching our children and caring for our sick in religious organizations across the country.

Read More

When the Paranoid President Meets the Supreme Court

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on Tuesday’s oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Vance, which raises the question of whether the President should be able to shield his tax and financial records from a congressional subpoena. Sarat urges that the Court see through the grandiosity and paranoia of the President’s legal claims, arguing that the future of a government of limited powers and the rule of law hangs in the balance.

Read More

Linking COVID-19 Relief for State Governments to Abandonment of “Sanctuary” Policies? The Uncharted Territory of Conditional Spending

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone assess President Trump’s suggestion that federal aid to state and local governments might be conditioned on their willingness to abandon their “sanctuary” policies and assist the federal government in immigration enforcement. Although Amar and Mazzone expect those federal spending conditions not to be realized, they use the President’s comment to list and describe some unanswered fundamental constitutional questions in the conditional spending arena.

Read More

State v. Gatto

Citation: 2020 ME 61

Opinion Date: May 12, 2020

Judge: Joseph Jabar

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of depraved indifference murder pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 201(1)(B), holding that the State presented sufficient evidence such that the fact-finder could have found each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not err in finding Defendant guilty of murder because the State presented sufficient evidence to support the fact-finder's determination that the State had proved each element beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion when it limited Defendant's cross-examination of the State's Chief Medical Examiner.

Anctil v. Cassese

Citation: 2020 ME 59

Opinion Date: May 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint for protection from harassment against Gladys Cassese, holding that Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4654(1) does not always preclude the court from adjudicating a protection from harassment complaint without first holding a hearing. On appeal, Appellant argued that the court was required to hold a hearing before adjudicating his complaint and that, alternatively, the court erred when it dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) a court is not prohibited in all circumstances from dismissing a protection from harassment complaint without first holding a hearing; and (2) the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

In re Child of Angela S.

Citation: 2020 ME 60

Opinion Date: May 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv), holding that competent evidence supported the court's finding that Mother was parentally unfit and the court's conclusion that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest. On appeal, Mother argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's findings of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was competent evidence in the record to support the finding of parental unfitness; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest.

In re Child of Jasmine B.

Citation: 2020 ME 62

Opinion Date: May 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Mother's child was in circumstances of jeopardy, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's finding that the child was in jeopardy. The Department of Health and Human Services sought a child protection order for the child alleging that the child was at risk of serious harm due to Mother's volatility and her lack of safe and stable housing. After a hearing, the court determined that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in finding that returning the child to Mother's custody would subject the child to a threat of serious harm.

In re Child of Jessica C.

Citation: 2020 ME 63

Opinion Date: May 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the court's findings of parental unfitness and best interest were supported by sufficient evidence. The district court found that Mother was an unfit parent on two statutory grounds - that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that she had been unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court's unfitness findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the child's best interest.

In re Child of Ronald P.

Citation: 2020 ME 64

Opinion Date: May 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the court did not err in finding that Father voluntarily and knowingly consented to the termination of his parental rights. The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights. At the termination hearing, Father informed the court that he intended to consent to the termination. After a colloquy with the court, Father confirmed that he understood the effects of consenting to the termination of his parental rights. The court found that Father's consent was knowing and voluntary and entered an order terminating Father's parental rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not clearly err in finding that Father knowingly and voluntarily consented to the termination of his parental rights.

In re Child of Shai F.

Citation: 2020 ME 67

Opinion Date: May 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the record supported the court's findings that Mother was an unfit parent and that termination of her parental rights was in the child's best interest. After a hearing, the court entered a judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, finding that Mother was an unfit parent and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court's supported findings were sufficient to support its determinations.

In re Child of Shem A.

Citation: 2020 ME 65

Opinion Date: May 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the court's findings of parental unfitness and that termination was in the best interests of the children. After a hearing, the court found that both parents were unfit pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv) and that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in finding Mother and Father unfit; and (2) the court did not err in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests.

In re Child of Stacy H.

Citation: 2020 ME 66

Opinion Date: May 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that there were sufficient findings and evidence to support the court's determination that termination was in the child's best interest. After a hearing, the court terminated Mother's parental rights to the child on the grounds that she was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, contrary to Mother's contention, the court adequately considered the child's best interest when it terminated Mother's parental rights.

In re Children of Alecia M.

Citation: 2020 ME 58

Opinion Date: May 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the district court determining that Mother's four children were in circumstances of jeopardy pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035(2), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the children were in jeopardy. After a hearing, the district court determined that the children were in circumstances of jeopardy due to the neglect and infliction of serious injury upon one of the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in crediting the testimony of one of the expert witnesses of the Department of Health and Human Services over the testimony of Mother's competing expert witness; and (2) the court's findings were sufficient for the court to find that the children would be in circumstances of jeopardy if they were returned to Mother's care.