Supreme Court Gives States the Green Light to Infringe Copyrights

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990, which gives individuals the right to sue a state for damages for copyright infringement. Dorf describes the complexity of the Court’s sovereign immunity doctrine and points out the Court’s peculiar failure to simply invalidate a portion of the statute while severing and preserving the valid portions and/or applications of it—which the Court has done in some other cases.

Read More

Amrhein v. eClinical Works, LLC

Docket: 19-1429

Opinion Date: March 27, 2020

Judge: Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Health Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Plaintiffs, patients whose healthcare providers used eClinicalWorks, LLC (ECW) software to record and store their medical records, lacked standing to bring this case, holding that, without further injury, Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this case. Plaintiffs were the estates of two deceased patients whose medical records were kept and stored by healthcare providers using ECW. Plaintiffs alleged that ECW's system was riddled with bugs that showed healthcare providers false and incomplete data about patients' medical problems and treatments and that ECW hid the glitches from government regulators. Plaintiffs brought several state common-law claims and sought to represent a class of millions of other similarly-situated patients. The district court dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the arguments as presented sought redress based on a moot risk of misdiagnosis or mistreatment that no statute or common-law claim makes suable. Therefore, Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this case.

United States v. Melo

Docket: 18-2147

Opinion Date: March 27, 2020

Judge: David J. Barron

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

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for one count of conspiracy and one count of structuring the export of monetary transactions, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. Defendant's convictions arose from his role in assisting the leader of conspiracy in smuggling cash through the Logan International Airport in Boston and onto a plane headed to Portuguese islands in the Atlantic Ocean. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence against him; (2) the district court did not err by admitting into evidence certain statements that the leader made to undercover agents and to admit records of Defendant's phone contacts with the leader; (3) there was no merit to Defendant's argument that the district court erred by refusing to issue certain jury instructions that Defendant argued he requested; and (4) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were without merit.

United States v. Gordon

Docket: 18-1277

Opinion Date: March 27, 2020

Judge: Sandra Lea Lynch

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and money laundering, holding that each of Defendant's arguments on appeal failed. Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence against him; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by excusing certain potential jurors during voir dire; (3) the trial court did not err by admitting certain expert testimony at Defendant's trial; and (4) there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Defendant guilty of money laundering.