Some Observations on Calls for Senate Reform: Part One of a Two-Part Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

In this first of a series of columns, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar offers four observations about recent calls for reform of the filibuster device in the U.S. Senate. Dean Amar suggests looking at state experiences with supermajority rules, as well as the Senate’s own recent past, and he considers why senators might be reluctant to eliminate the filibuster. He concludes with a comment on President Joe Biden’s suggestion that the Senate return to the “talking filibuster” and praises a suggestion by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) that the cloture requirement (currently at 60 votes) could be lowered gradually, the longer a measure under consideration is debated.

Read More

Krekelberg v. City of Minneapolis

Docket: 20-1362

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Raymond W. Gruender

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff, an officer in the Minneapolis Police Department, filed suit against more than forty local government entities and employees for, among other things, violating the Driver's Protection Privacy Act (DPPA). The Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err by denying the City's Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to the 72 vicarious-liability claims against it. In this case, the dismissals of the 72 underlying claims against the officers were not "judgments on the merits" under the meaning of section 217B(2) and that section does not prohibit the City from being held vicariously liable for them. The court also concluded that defendants are entitled to a new trial on the basis that the admitted evidence of 850 accesses that were not committed by the 58 MPD officers whose alleged DPPA violations were at issue; the admitted evidence of harassment, retaliation, and failure to investigate by the City; and the instructions to the jury that the City would indemnify Officers Young and Olson. The court vacated the judgment, reversed, and remanded for a new trial due to the erroneous admission of evidence and faulty jury instruction that affected defendants' substantial rights.

United States v. Gifford

Docket: 19-3768

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. 2251 and to committing a felony against a minor while being a registered sex offender under 18 U.S.C. 2260A. The court concluded that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence of 300 months' imprisonment for the section 2251 conviction, which is a 60-month downward variance from the Guidelines range. As required, the district court added 120 months' imprisonment to the sentence based on defendant's section 2260A conviction, running consecutively. In this case, the district court did not give improper weight to the facts of the case, and the district court considered the mitigating factors, as well as potential sentencing disparities. The court explained that the district court has substantial latitude to determine how much weight to give each 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factor and the district court did not exceeds its substantial latitude here. The court also concluded that, although the district court plainly erred by imposing a life term of supervised release that exceeds three years, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights.