Death Penalty Opponents Should Rethink Their Support for Life Without Parole Sentences

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—argues that life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP) are as problematic and damaging as the death penalty. For this reason, Professor Sarat calls upon death penalty opponents to reconsider their support for LWOP sentences.

Read More

Crowe v. Oregon State Bar

Docket: 19-35463

Opinion Date: February 26, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Oregon State Bar, alleging First Amendment violations arising from the Oregon State Bar's (OSB) requirement that lawyers must join and pay annual membership fees in order to practice in Oregon. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that (1) the two statements from the April 2018 Bulletin are not germane; (2) compelling them to join and maintain membership in OSB violates their right to freedom of association; and (3) compelling plaintiffs to pay—without their prior, affirmative consent—annual membership fees to OSB violates their right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, the Crowe Plaintiffs alone contend that the Bar's constitutionally mandated procedural safeguards for objecting members are deficient, and the Gruber Plaintiffs alone continue to argue on appeal that OSB is not entitled to sovereign immunity from suit. The district court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that precedent forecloses the free speech claim, but neither the Supreme Court nor this court has resolved the free association claim now before the panel. Even assuming both statements at issue were nongermane, the panel concluded that plaintiffs' free speech claim failed. As alleged, the panel also concluded that the OSB's refund process is sufficient to minimize potential infringement on its members' constitutional rights. However, the panel explained that plaintiffs may have stated a viable claim that Oregon's compulsory Bar membership requirement violates their First Amendment right of free association. On remand, the panel noted that there are a number of complicated issues that the district court will need to address. First, the district court will need to determine whether Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2477, 2481 (2018), supplies the appropriate standard for plaintiffs' free association claim and, if so, whether OSB can satisfy its "exacting scrutiny standard." Given that the panel has never addressed such a broad free association claim, the district court will also likely need to determine whether Keller v. State Bar of California's, 496 U.S. 1, 13–14 (1990), instructions with regards to germaneness and procedurally adequate safeguards are even relevant to the free association inquiry. Finally, the panel concluded that the district court erred by determining that OSB was an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, the panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court with instructions.

Lazo v. Wilkinson

Docket: 14-73182

Opinion Date: February 26, 2021

Judge: Collins

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision holding that petitioner's 1999 conviction for simple possession of cocaine in violation of California Health and Safety Code 11350 qualifies as a "controlled substance offense," thereby rendering him removable under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Although California Health and Safety Code 11350, by its terms, applies to a broader range of "controlled substance[s]" than the narrower federal definition that governs under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i), the panel agreed with the BIA that petitioner's conviction nonetheless qualifies under the so-called "modified categorical" approach to analyzing prior convictions. Applying this approach, the panel concluded that section 11350 is a "divisible" statute that defines multiple alternative offenses, depending upon which controlled substance was possessed. In this case, because petitioner's conviction under section 11350 was for possession of cocaine, and because cocaine qualifies as a "controlled substance" under the applicable federal definition, it follows that petitioner was convicted of an offense "relating to a controlled substance" within the meaning of section 237(a)(2)(B)(i). Therefore, the panel concluded that petitioner was properly ordered to be removed from the United States.