Latest 3 Cases: Business Leaders In Christ v. The University of Iowa (Civil Rights), Lopez-Chavez v. Garland (Criminal Law), Gutierrez-Gutierrez ...

The Dreadful Failure of Lethal Injection

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—comments on the decomposition of the legal injection paradigm over the past few decades, since it was first adopted in Oklahoma in 1999. Professor Sarat observes the evolution of the procedure over time and points out that none of the changes has resolved lethal injection’s fate or repaired its vexing problems.

Read More

Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: State Representative Ana-Maria Ramos Introduces Bill to Repeal Parental Consent Requirement for Birth Control

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a Texas bill that would allow teens to access birth control without parental involvement. Professor Grossman describes the current state of reproductive health laws and policies in Texas and explains why the proposed bill is so important.

Read More

Business Leaders In Christ v. The University of Iowa

Docket: 19-1696

Opinion Date: March 22, 2021

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

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

Business Leaders in Christ filed suit against the University and others, alleging that the University defendants violated its First Amendment rights through the application of the University's Policy on Human Rights. This action arose from the University's investigation of Business Leaders' refusal to allow a gay member to become an officer in the religious organization. The district court held that the University defendants violated Business Leaders' First Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion; granted Business Leaders permanent injunctive relief and thus prohibited the University defendants from enforcing the Policy against Business Leaders under certain conditions; but granted qualified immunity to the individual defendants on Business Leaders' money damages claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the individual defendants on Business Leaders' free-speech and expressive-association claims. In this case, the law was clearly established at the time the individual defendants acted that the University's recognition of registered student organizations constituted a limited public forum, that the university may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint in a limited public forum, and that Business Leaders had a right not to be subjected to viewpoint discrimination while speaking in the University's limited public forum. However, the district court correctly granted qualified immunity to the individual defendants on Business Leaders' free-exercise claim, because the law was not clearly established at the time that the individual defendants' violated Business Leaders' free-exercise rights.

Lopez-Chavez v. Garland

Docket: 18-3735

Opinion Date: March 22, 2021

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The court held that petitioner's 2003 Missouri marijuana conviction is not a categorical match for the corresponding federal offense in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), and thus the 2006 conviction for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326 does not qualify as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(O). Therefore, petitioner is not statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and the court remanded for further proceedings.

Gutierrez-Gutierrez v. Garland

Dockets: 18-2034, 19-3715

Opinion Date: March 22, 2021

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit denied petitions for review of the reinstatement of a 1998 removal order by the DHS and the denial of a motion to reopen the 1998 removal proceedings by the BIA. The court rejected petitioner's contention that his reinstated 1998 removal order was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, because his counsel was ineffective. The court concluded that petitioner's contention is untimely because it was not raised within thirty days of the underlying removal order, as required by 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1). The court also concluded that there is substantial evidence supporting the existence of a prior removal order, and petitioner's reentry was unlawful because he reentered within ten years of his removal without the Attorney General's permission to reapply for admission. The court concluded that the Board correctly determined that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the 1998 proceedings. The court explained that an alien ordinarily has a right to file one motion to reopen within ninety days of a final removal order, but an alien forfeits that right by illegally reentering the country. Petitioner's motion also came well after the expiration of the ninety-day time limit for an alien’s motion. Finally, the court agreed with the Board that current law does not allow for a miscarriage-of-justice exception to the statutory prohibition on reopening a reinstated removal order.