Impeaching a Former President Is Plainly Constitutional

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that the text of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the power to impeach and convict Donald Trump, even though he is no longer President. Buchanan describes the unambiguous textual support for this conclusion, which Buchanan (and others) argue is also amply supported by the Constitution’s purpose, structure, and other interpretive approaches.

Read More

United States v. Hudson

Docket: 19-10227

Opinion Date: January 29, 2021

Judge: Michael Daly Hawkins

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for possession of child pornography where the district court applied a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2). Section 2252(b)(2) applies if a defendant has a prior conviction "under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." The district court applied section 2252(b)(2) based on defendant's prior conviction under California Penal Code 288(a), which criminalizes lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor under the age of fourteen. The panel held that the statutory provision "relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward" is not unconstitutionally vague, because the language neither fails to give ordinary people notice of its scope nor poses a risk of arbitrary enforcement.

Kaur v. Wilkinson

Docket: 18-73001

Opinion Date: January 29, 2021

Judge: Kim McLane Wardlaw

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's applications for asylum and related relief. The panel held that petitioner's credible testimony about an attempted gang rape was sufficient to establish past persecution, and that the Board erred in imposing evidentiary requirements of ongoing injury or treatment beyond the attempted sexual assault in order to show persecution. The panel stated that it has consistently treated rape as one of the most severe forms of persecution, and explained that some forms of physical violence are so extreme that even attempts to commit them constitute persecution. In this case, petitioner's credible testimony about the attempted gang rape is sufficient to show persecution. The panel explained that attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator's domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Furthermore, requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim. The panel remanded for further proceedings.