Why the Biden Administration Was Right Earlier This Week to Change Course in the Obamacare Challenge Pending Before the Court

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law Dean Vikram David Amar comments on an unusual move by the U.S. Solicitor General’s office, sending a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court amending the position of the federal government in a case currently pending before the Court challenging the Affordable Care Act. Dean Amar explains why the arrival of a new administration should generally not trigger such position reversals, but he argues that the unusual circumstances—specifically the “exceptional implausibility” of the government’s prior filings—may justify the government’s action in this instance.

Read More

Isabel v. Reagan

Docket: 19-17397

Opinion Date: February 11, 2021

Judge: Murguia

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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, based on failure to state a claim, of plaintiff's action seeking to remedy defendants' failure to count his vote in the 2016 November General Election. At issue is whether Arizona residents who registered to vote on October 11, 2016, registered to vote in time to be eligible to vote in the 2016 November General Election. The Arizona law in effect in 2016 set the voter registration deadline for the 2016 November Election on Monday, October 10, 2016. However, because Monday, October 10, 2016 was also Columbus Day, a state and federal holiday, certain methods of voter registration were not available on that day. In this case, plaintiff and roughly 2,000 others registered to vote on Tuesday, October 11, 2016. The panel held that, under Arizona law in effect in 2016, an Arizona resident who registered to vote on October 11, 2016 did not register in time to be eligible to vote in the 2016 November Election. The panel also held that the October 10, 2016 voter registration deadline did not violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Accordingly, the panel need not reach the remaining two questions regarding the enforceability of the NVRA under section 1983 and the factual predicate necessary to state a cognizable money damages claim for deprivation of an individual's right to vote. Finally, the panel noted that this rigid result is not likely to reoccur under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-120, as amended.

United States v. Woodberry

Dockets: 19-30225, 19-30284

Opinion Date: February 11, 2021

Judge: Ronald Murray Gould

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment finding Defendants Woodberry and Johnson guilty of Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and (b)(1); separately finding Johnson guilty of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); convicting Woodberry of aiding and abetting Johnson's firearm possession offense; and finding that Johnson used a short-barreled rifle during the robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(B)(i), which resulted in both defendants having their mandatory minimum sentences increased. The panel held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury that the "market for marijuana, including its intrastate aspects, is commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction," or that the "commerce" element of Hobbs Act robbery could be established if the robbery "could" affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction. The panel also held that the short-barreled element in section 924(c)(1)(B)(i) does not contain a separate mens rea requirement.