Update on Trump’s Coup: Do Not Think That This Is Guaranteed to End Well

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan explains why “being patient with Trump” is a recipe for disaster, why there are still reasons to be guardedly optimistic, and why this all could still end very badly. Buchanan argues that the present situation is not guaranteed end badly, but he cautions that a Trump coup is eminently possible.

Read More

Brennon B. v. Superior Court

Docket: A157026(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 13, 2020

Judge: Banke

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

The court of appeal upheld the dismissal of a claim against a school district under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code 51), A school district is not a business establishment and cannot be sued under the Unruh Act even where, as in this case, the alleged discriminatory conduct is actionable under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. 12101). The California Supreme Court has not considered whether a government entity, specifically an agent of the state performing a state constitutional obligation is a business establishment within the meaning of the Act. The court of appeal examined the historical genesis of the Act and the Act’s limited legislative history. Public school districts are, nonetheless, subject to stringent anti-discrimination laws set forth in the Education Code and the comprehensive anti-discrimination provisions set forth in the Government Code and applicable to all government entities, as well as federal constitutional mandates (actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983), and statutes such as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681), Title II of the ADA (42 U.S.C. 12131), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794).

Menifee v. Superior Court

Docket: H047473(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 13, 2020

Judge: Eugene M. Premo

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Menifee and his codefendants were charged, based on a 2013 home invasion robbery, with first-degree robbery within an inhabited place acting in concert; attempted first-degree robbery within an inhabited place acting in concert; first-degree burglary; first-degree robbery within an inhabited place; attempted robbery of an inhabited building; and active participation in a criminal street gang (Penal Code 186.22(a)). The information alleged firearm and gang enhancements. Based on Menifee’s criminal record, Menifee's tattoos and the facts of the instant offense, a gang expert (Jackson) opined that Menifee was “an active associate of Double Rock criminal street gang.” Jackson agreed that, absent the current offense, Menifee would be an associate, rather than a Double Rock member. Taking the current offense into account, however, Jackson considered Menifee to be a member. Jackson admitted that, to his knowledge, there was no record that Menifee admitted to gang membership when he was arrested in 2013 or at any other time. Menifee moved to dismiss the gang participation count and the gang enhancement allegations pursuant to section 995. The court of appeal upheld the denial of the motion. While certain components of the gang expert’s testimony were inadmissible, the remaining admissible evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was sufficient to hold Menifee to answer on the gang enhancement allegations and substantive gang participation charge.