“Might as Well Carry a Purse with That Mask, Joe”: COVID-19, Toxic Masculinity, and the Sad State of National Politics

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, LINDA C. MCCLAIN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Boston University law professor Linda C. McClain comment on COVID-19, toxic masculinity, and the state of national politics today. Grossman and McClain contrast President Trump’s reckless bravado that endangers the lives of Americans with the empathy of Democratic presidential nominee former Vice President Joe Biden’s in asking people to be patriotic by doing their part by wearing masks to protect other Americans.

Read More

Should Department of Justice Lawyers Defy William Barr?

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on an open letter addressed to the 100,000 professionals working in the U.S. Department of Justice and published by Lawyers Defending Democracy. In the letter, more than 600 members of the bar from across the United States call on their DOJ colleagues to refrain from “participating in political misuse of the DOJ in the elction period ahead.” Sarat argues that the letter rightly recognizes that Attorney General Barr’s blatant partisanship endangers the integrity of the DOJ itself and its role in preserving the rule of law.

Read More

In Re: Huffines Retail Partners, LP

Docket: 20-10581

Opinion Date: October 9, 2020

Judges: Edith H. Jones, Stephen Andrew Higginson, Andrew S. Oldham

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Fifth Circuit granted a petition for mandamus filed by HC Operating, LP. Purchasers filed two Notices of Lis Pendens, in Denton County and Dallas County real property records; sellers moved to expunge the Notices, followed by related pleadings, which were forwarded to a magistrate judge for recommendations; and the magistrate judge issued findings, conclusions and recommendations denying relief, and the district court accepted his recommendations. Consequently, the district court denied Motions to Expunge Lis Pendens Notices, and Motions to Cancel the notices. The court held that allowing the Purchasers to maintain the notices of lis pendens filed in this case was based on clear and indisputable errors of fact and law; the Sellers have no other adequate means of seeking redress than by issuance of this writ; and mandamus is "appropriate under the circumstances." In this case, the district court misread the governing acquisition documents, misapprehended Texas law regarding notices of lis pendens, misapplied the facts to the law, and therefore acquiesced in a gross abuse by Purchasers of state lis pendens law.

United States v. Leontaritis

Docket: 19-40498

Opinion Date: October 9, 2020

Judge: Catharina Haynes

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court held that the district court did not err in making its decision about drug quantity for purposes of determining the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. The court also held that, because the district court's statements show that the sentence was not based on the guidelines range and that the district court would have imposed the same sentence without the alleged error for the same reasons, any error in imposing the two-level enhancement for abuse of position of trust is harmless. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

United States v. Strother

Docket: 19-40361

Opinion Date: October 9, 2020

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Because defendant's arguments for plea withdrawal—particularly his argument that his plea was not given knowingly and voluntarily—derive from his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the court chose to address the merits of the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. The court considered the Carr factors and the totality of the circumstances, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Given defendant's consistent, repeated statements in court affirming that he understood the required elements of his charge up until the time of his plea withdrawal motion, the court found that the district court did not err in determining that the record did not support defendant's assertion that he was unaware of the "knowingly possessed" element of his offense. Furthermore, the record supports the conclusion that counsel was available to defendant throughout the proceedings; defendant's original plea was knowing and voluntary; defendant delayed in filing his motion to withdraw; and the government would suffer prejudice if the withdrawal motion were granted.