An Important Second Circuit Ruling on Sanctuary Jurisdictions May Have Reached the Right Result, but En Route it Misread the Momentous Sebelius Supreme Court Ruling on Conditional Federal Funding to States

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Amar argues that while the Second Circuit may have arrived at the correct conclusion of law, it also misunderstood the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, in which the Court struck down the “Medicare expansion” provision of the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutionally coercive. Amar points out that in Sebelius, the Court found the fact that the Medicare expansion provision of the ACA vitiated the terms of a preexisting deal was sufficient to hold that provision coercive.

Read More

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. All American Check Cashing, Inc.

Docket: 18-60302

Opinion Date: March 3, 2020

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Judge Higginson concluded that the restrictions on the President's removal authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act are valid and constitutional. Judge Higginson found that neither the text of the United States Constitution nor the Supreme Court's previous decisions support appellants' arguments that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutionally structured, and thus he affirmed the district court's judgment.

United States v. Arambula

Docket: 19-40330

Opinion Date: March 3, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant appealed his 120 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing cocaine base. Defendant argued that his 1994 conviction for robbery, in violation of Texas Penal Code 29.02, does not qualify as a crime of violence in light of the commentary in USSG 4B1.1. The Fifth Circuit denied the government's motion for summary affirmance and granted the government's motion for an extension of time to file its brief. The court held that the government has not addressed whether the holdings in the cases upon which it relies are equally applicable to cases involving section 4B1.2(a), notwithstanding the commentary to that guideline. Therefore, the government has not satisfied the standard for summary affirmance.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. v. Claimant ID 100191715

Docket: 19-30264

Opinion Date: March 3, 2020

Judge: Kurt D. Engelhardt

Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Government & Administrative Law

In this appeal stemming from the Deepwater Horizon litigation, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting discretionary review and affirming a $77 million award against BP. The court held that the district court failed to consider investigating credible evidence of a sole, superseding cause for the claimant's loss. Furthermore, the district court's decision was made without the benefit of this circuit's guidance on causation. In this case, claimant is a global commodities merchandiser that purchases and supplies ammonia and fertilizers around the world. BP argued that claimant passed the V-Shaped Revenue Pattern due solely to a price spike and drop in the price of fertilizer that was unrelated to the oil spill. The court remanded for the district court to examine the issue in the first instance and to determine whether to remand to the Claims Administrator for additional factfinding.