The Upside-Down Treatment of Religious Exceptions Cases in the Supreme Court

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week to reject an emergency application from the State of Alabama to lift a stay on the execution of Willie B. Smith III. Professor Dorf observes the Court’s unusual alignment of votes in the decision and argues that, particularly as reflected by the recent COVID-19 decisions, the liberal and conservative Justices have essentially swapped places from the seminal 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith, which established that the First Amendment does not guarantee a right to exceptions from neutral laws of general applicability.

Read More

Mejia v. Pfister

Docket: 19-2720

Opinion Date: February 19, 2021

Judge: Scudder

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

Illinois inmate Mejia sued correctional officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging his filthy cell conditions and constant hallway lighting that prevented him from sleeping. His primary claim survived dismissal and summary judgment and proceeded to trial. The jury returned a defense verdict. Mejia had asked the district court, six times, to appoint counsel. Each time the court denied the request, reasoning that Mejia had demonstrated through his many filings that he understood his burden of proof and was capable of assembling evidence and marshaling arguments to support his contention that the Pontiac Correctional Center's conditions of confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court correctly observed that Mejia had an extensive litigation history, including at least one prior case going to trial, albeit with counsel. Mejia had difficulty with the discovery process, but it was within the judge’s discretion to overlook his slips and help him rather than try to recruit counsel. The court observed, during the pretrial conference, Mejia’s ability to comprehend and address the facts and issues pertinent to his Eighth Amendment claim. There was no abuse of discretion; the fact that some trial witnesses testified by videoconference does not change the analysis.

United States v. Anderson

Docket: 19-2361

Opinion Date: February 19, 2021

Judge: Diane Pamela Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Anderson furnished heroin to Sublett every month; Sublett cut the heroin with sleeping-aid medication and used retail-level sellers, including Ray, and paid Anderson after selling the heroin. Occasionally Sublett also stored large quantities of heroin for Anderson. Anderson provided Sublett with “Kansas City” heroin, which Ray sold to his regular customer, Buchanan. Buchanan overdosed. Paramedics revived Buchanan and took him to the hospital. After his release, Buchanan told Ray that he had overdosed on the "Kansas City." Anderson, Sublett, Ray, and others were charged under 21 U.S.C. 846. Count Two charged Anderson with aiding and abetting the distribution of heroin to Buchanan that resulted in his overdose (section 841(a)(1)). Anderson’s codefendants pleaded guilty. Anderson was convicted on both charges. For the serious-bodily-injury enhancement, the jury responded yes to: “With respect to Count One, Count Two, or both … the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt Ian Buchanan suffered serious bodily injury and that the serious bodily injury … resulted from the use of heroin distributed by” Anderson. The court calculated a guidelines range of 360 months to life, considering the serious-bodily-injury finding and a two-level “leadership” enhancement, but ultimately imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 300 months. The Seventh Circuit vacated the distribution conviction, which was based on an aiding-and-abetting theory of liability that was unsupported by the evidence. To establish under an aiding-and-abetting theory, the government had to prove that Anderson “affirmative[ly] act[ed] in furtherance of” Ray’s sale to Buchanan and intended to facilitate the commission of that sale. It is impossible to tell from the jury’s verdict whether the serious-bodily-injury enhancement applied only to the flawed distribution conviction, only to the unchallenged conspiracy conviction, or to both.

LHO Chicago River, L.L.C. v. Rosemoor Suites, LLC

Docket: 20-2506

Opinion Date: February 19, 2021

Judge: KANNE

Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Legal Ethics, Trademark

LHO owns a downtown hotel that it rebranded as “Hotel Chicago” in 2014. In 2016, Rosemoor renamed its existing westside hotel as “Hotel Chicago.” LHO sued Rosemoor for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and for deceptive advertising and common-law trademark violations under Illinois law. The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief, finding that “LHO has failed, at this juncture, to show that it is likely to succeed in proving secondary meaning" and was unlikely to show that “Hotel Chicago” was a protectable trademark. LHO appealed but successfully moved to voluntarily dismiss its claims with prejudice before briefing. Rosemoor requested more than $500,000 in attorney fees, arguing that the case qualified as “exceptional.” The district court denied the request under the Seventh Circuit's “abuse-of-process” standard. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court should have evaluated Rosemoor’s attorney-fee request under the Supreme Court’s “Octane Fitness” holding. On remand, Rosemoor filed a renewed request for more than $630,000 in fees, arguing that the weakness of LHO’s position on the merits, LHO’s motives in bringing suit, and its conduct in discovery, made the case exceptional under Octane Fitness. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the request. The district court applied the Octane Fitness standard and reasonably exercised its discretion in weighing the evidence before it.