Bringing Home the Supply Chain

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JONATHAN F. HARRIS

NYU law professors Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan F. Harris describe how the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing the United States to confront the problem of unchecked globalization. Estreicher and Harris argue that once the pandemic subsides, U.S. policymakers should, as a matter of national security, mandate that a minimum percentage of essential supplies be manufactured domestically.

Read More

Unconstitutional Chaos: Abortion in the Time of COVID-19

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, MARY ZIEGLER

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler discuss the abortion bans implemented in several states in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Grossman and Ziegler explain why the bans are constitutional and comment on the connection between the legal challenges to those bans and the broader fight over abortion rights.

Read More

United States v. Allen

Docket: 19-3606

Opinion Date: April 14, 2020

Judge: John M. Rogers

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2007, Allen pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. The court determined that Allen was a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 and sentenced him to 210 months’ imprisonment. In 2019, Allen moved to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018, 132 Stat. 5194, citing his age and participation in numerous prison classes and programs. The government argued that his sentencing guidelines range remained unchanged even though the statutory mandatory minimum penalty had been lowered. The district court denied Allen’s request for a reduced prison sentence, reasoning that the Act precluded it from considering Allen’s post-sentencing conduct. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The First Step Act provision regarding retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act does not prohibit courts from considering a defendant’s post-sentencing conduct when deciding whether to reduce his sentence. Courts may consider all relevant factors when determining whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence under section 404, which does not require courts to ignore all developments that occurred after the defendant committed the covered offense. Congress contemplated that district courts may look to 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)’s familiar framework when deciding whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence under the First Step Act.

Hoffman Properties II, L.P. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Docket: 19-1831

Opinion Date: April 14, 2020

Judge: Thapar

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law

Hoffman owns the historic Tremaine Building in Cleveland, Ohio. Over a decade ago, Hoffman donated an easement in the façade of the building and certain airspace restrictions associated with the building to the American Association of Historic Preservation (AAHP). Hoffman agreed not to alter the historic character of the façade or to build in the airspace above or next to the building—subject to certain conditions. Hoffman then sought a $15 million tax deduction for its donation of a “qualified conservation contribution,” I.R.C. 170(f)(3)(B)(iii). The IRS and Tax Court concluded that Hoffman was not entitled to a deduction because the donation was not “exclusively for conservation purposes.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed. To be deductible, the donation must protect the conservation purposes “in perpetuity,” I.R.C. 170(h)(5)(A) and include “legally enforceable restrictions” that will prevent the donor from using its retained interest in the property in a way “inconsistent with the [donation’s] conservation purposes.” The donation agreement gives Hoffman the right to propose changes to the facade or airspace, after which AAHP has a 45-day window in which to prevent those changes. If the organization misses that window—for whatever reason—it loses the ability to stop the change. The provision violates the “perpetuity” requirement.