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 unconstitutional and comment on the connection between the legal challenges to those bans and the broader fight over abortion rights.

Read More

United States v. Sanchez-Velasco

Docket: 18-3568

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress his responses to an ICE agent's two questions at the Treasurer's Office, because he was not in custody at the time of questioning. Although defendant was in custody at the ICE facility, the court held that an agent's questions were not custodial interrogation because the agent could not have known his questions were likely to elicit incriminating information regarding the two criminal charges that were eventually brought against defendant. The court noted that the Attorney General's regulations carefully distinguish between the warrantless arrest of an alien for a criminal violation of the immigration laws, and what is called the "administrative arrest" of an alien who is reasonably believed to be illegally present in the United States. The court agreed with the district court that the agent's questioning was a request for routine information necessary for basic identification purposes that is not interrogation under Miranda, even if the information turns out to be incriminating.

United States v. Boyd

Docket: 18-3528

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Kobes

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the facts underlying defendant's prior arrests were part of his history and characteristics under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and thus the district court could consider defendant's arrest records and the circumstances of those arrests. The court explained that the arrests were listed in the presentence report and gleaned from prior police reports. Furthermore, specific facts underlying the arrests may be considered for an upward departure and should be considered fair game for a variance where defendant did not object to them. The court also concluded that there is nothing here that suggested a corrected misstatement improperly influenced the district court's sentencing decision. Finally, the court held that the upward variance was not unreasonable in consideration of defendant's previous assaults, coupled with the facts underlying his arrest in this case.