The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Real Rigging of Georgia’s Election

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar explains why Georgia’s law allowing persons 75 years and older to get absentee ballots for all elections in an election cycle with a single request, while requiring younger voters to request absentee ballots separately for each election, is a clear violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Dean Amar acknowledges that timing may prevent this age discrimination from being redressed in 2020, but he calls upon legislatures and courts to understand the meaning of this amendment and prevent such invidious disparate treatment of voters in future years.

Read More

COVID Comes to Federal Death Row—It Is Time to Stop the Madness

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—explains the enhanced risk of COVID-19 infection in the federal death row in Terre Haute, not only among inmates but among those necessary to carry out executions. Professor Sarat calls upon the Trump administration and other officials to focus on saving, rather than taking, lives inside and outside prison.

Read More

Benskin, Inc. v. West Bank

Docket: 18-1966

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: Thomas D. Waterman

Areas of Law: Banking, Contracts

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing this case on the pleadings, except for slander of title, holding that slander of title was adequately alleged. Debtor brought this case against Bank, alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and slander of title. The district court granted Bank's motion to dismiss, ruling that the contract and fraud claims were time-barred, rejecting Debtor's discovery rule and equitable estoppel arguments, and concluding that the slander of title claim failed to allege publication to a third party. The court of appeals reversed and reinstated all claims. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals in part and affirmed the district court's judgment except as to the slander of title claim, holding (1) the contract, good faith, and fraud claims were time-barred, and the equitable estoppel argument failed as a matter of law; and (2) the slander of title claim was adequately alleged.

State v. Barrett

Docket: 19-1697

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: McDermott

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for a new trial, holding that the district court erred in applying too strict a standard in determining whether Defendant was entitled to a new trial under the circumstances of this case. Defendant, who was charged with sexual abuse of a child, requested the child's privileged mental health and counseling records. The district court denied the request. The court of appeals remanded the case, ruling that Defendant should have been granted access to the child's mental health and counseling records because they contained exculpatory information. On remand, the district court denied the motion for new trial after applying a weight of the evidence standard. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the appropriate standard for a new trial determination after a district court fails to order production of exculpatory medical records is the material standard in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (2) because the district court applied the incorrect standard in denying the motion for new trial, the case must be remanded.

State v. Hawk

Docket: 19-1814

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: Oxley

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the restitution order of the district court in this criminal matter, holding that this Court had jurisdiction to review the restitution order and that Defendant did not meet his burden to overturn the restitution order. Defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered to pay a $1000 fine. The district court then ordered a "second category" of restitution apart from the fine totaling $593 for court costs and attorney fees. Defendant appealed, arguing that the second category of restitution was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court has jurisdiction to consider Defendant's appeal; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of restitution Defendant had the ability to pay.