Latest 2 Cases: State v. Herring (Civil Rights), State v. Dale (Civil Rights)

Is the So-Called Mandate Without Any Tax Consequences Unconstitutional? And If So, How Should a Court Remedy That? Part Three in a Series Examining Underexplored Issues in the California v. Texas Affordable Care Act Case

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this third of a series of columns examining underexplored issues in the California v. Texas case challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone consider whether the so-called individual mandate of the ACA, now without any tax consequences, is unconstitutional, as the challengers argue. The authors explain why, in their view, the challengers are incorrect, regardless of whether the word “shall” in the ACA is interpreted as obligatory or not.

Read More

State v. Herring

Docket: 118648

Opinion Date: October 16, 2020

Judge: Dan Biles

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

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals panel that used a harmless error analysis to save a district court's denial of Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea even though the panel concluded that the court applied the wrong legal standard, holding the court of appeals erred in engaging in a harmless error analysis under the circumstances. Defendant pleaded no contest to robbery and aggravated assault. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion. The panel concluded that the district court erred in using the Strickland test rather than the "lackluster advocacy" standard specified in State v. Aguilar, 231 P.3d 563 (Kan. 2010) but that the error was harmless. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the analysis of the court of appeals was incorrect.

State v. Dale

Docket: 117162

Opinion Date: October 16, 2020

Judge: Marla J. Luckert

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated robbery, holding that the court of appeals did not err in holding that the convictions would not result in a subsequent prosecution and that Defendant was not twice put in jeopardy. Defendant took the property of three individuals in one incident. Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft, each count relating to a different victim. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State divided one criminal offense into three crimes in violation of double jeopardy protections. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's theft conviction and otherwise affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the charges arose from unitary conduct; (2) the State did not violate double jeopardy protection by prosecuting Defendant a second time for aggravated robbery after his theft conviction had been affirmed; and (3) Defendant's aggravated robbery convictions were not multiplicitous.