Latest 3 Cases: Metropolitan Omaha Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Omaha, Nebraska (Civil Rights), United States v. Vangh (Criminal Law), United ...

The Oprah Interview as a Truth Commission

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler explains how Oprah’s interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might illuminate how a formal truth commission to deal with legacies of racism and colonialism might function in the British empire. Professor Wexler describes the purpose and function of state-operated truth commissions and notes the similarities and differences between those and the interview.

Read More

Metropolitan Omaha Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Omaha, Nebraska

Dockets: 20-1006, 20-1851

Opinion Date: March 15, 2021

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Landlord - Tenant, Real Estate & Property Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, alleging that the Rental Property Registration and Inspection Ordinance violated their constitutional rights, breached their consent decree with the City, and violated the Fair Housing Act. The Ordinance implemented uniform residential rental property registration, and a regular inspection program that is phased in accordance with the history of code violations on each property, requiring all rental properties in the City to register with the Permits and Inspections Division before leasing to tenants. The district court denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed plaintiffs' claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Ordinance does not violate Metro Omaha's constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Applying the Nebraska Supreme Court's rules of construction, the court concluded that the plain text of the Ordinance does not authorize warrantless inspections of properties if consent is withheld. Furthermore, pre-compliance review before inspections does not apply here where inspections are permitted only if there is consent, a warrant, or court order. Finally, by withholding consent, property owners are not subject to criminal liability or prohibited from renting their property. The court also concluded that the Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court explained that the Ordinance provides adequate notice of the proscribed conduct and does not lend itself to arbitrary enforcement. The court further concluded that Metro Omaha fails to plausibly plead a breach of the consent decree, and that the Ordinance does not violate the Fair Housing Act.

United States v. Vangh

Docket: 19-3795

Opinion Date: March 15, 2021

Judge: Stras

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release. The court concluded that there is no more support in the statutory text of 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) for adopting evidentiary hearing requirements for compassionate release motions than there is for mandatory hearings of any kind. The court explained that the statutory text all but refutes defendant's argument and the court declined to create such a requirement itself for an unambiguous statute under its supervisory powers. The court also concluded that the district court did not make an analytical error. In this case, contrary to defendant's argument, the district court considered whether his reasons for a reduction were "extraordinary and compelling" before ultimately denying relief.

United States v. Yackel

Docket: 20-1157

Opinion Date: March 15, 2021

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 240-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court adopted the presentence investigation report finding that defendant was a career offender. The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that defendant's prior conviction for aiding and abetting second-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. Section 609.05 qualified as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court rejected defendant's arguments to the contrary, concluding that State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn. 1981), does not support defendant's contention that there is something "special" about Minnesota's definition of aiding and abetting. Similarly, the other Minnesota cases to which defendant cites fail to show that there is something "special" about the Minnesota courts' application of section 609.05.