Disaster Relief to States and Cities Is Both Right and Good: Part 1 of 2

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

In this first of a series of columns about federal relief to state and local governments, UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan provides the economic background to explain how unprecedented these times are and argues that supporting cities and states is essential to surviving this crisis.

Read More

Jackson v. City of Hearne

Docket: 19-50663

Opinion Date: May 13, 2020

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the city and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985, alleging violations of his First Amendment, equal protection, and due process rights. Plaintiff's claims relate to his charge, and subsequent jury acquittal, of misdemeanor assault. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss. The court rejected plaintiff's equal protection claim on selective prosecution, holding that plaintiff failed to allege disparate treatment of similarly situated persons. Plaintiff was also not entitled to discovery. The court further rejected plaintiff's contention that it was clearly established that government officials could not selectively prosecute someone based on his First Amendment activities, tamper with a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial, or retaliate against someone for exercising his First Amendment rights. The court held that plaintiff failed to cite any authority showing that the right was clearly established and thus waived the issue; he failed to plead a constitutional violation; and the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that plaintiff's conspiracy claim likewise failed. The court rejected plaintiff's claims that the city manager violated his due process rights by submitting letters to the judge ex parte. Even if the city manager's conduct violated plaintiff's due process rights, those rights were not clearly established. The court also held that the Officers, Leaders, and city manager were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim. Finally, plaintiff failed to state a claim against the other defendants.

United States v. Alvear

Dockets: 19-10040, 19-10041

Opinion Date: May 13, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release and sentence of 27 months in prison. Defendant was convicted for various drug crimes. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court violated his right to confront adverse witnesses by considering hearsay during his revocation hearing. In Morrissey v. Brewer, the Supreme Court established "the minimum requirements of due process" in parole revocation hearings. Applying the Morrissey standard, the court held that the government showed good cause to overcome defendant's right to confront the hearsay declarant arrayed against him. In this case, while defendant's interest may be heightened, it was undoubtedly diminished by the context of the specific facts of the proceedings. Furthermore, the witness's fear, as extensively evidenced in the record, was sufficient to constitute the government's interest in allowing her out-of-court statements. Finally, the court held that the witness's out of court statements had sufficient indicia of reliability.