Why the Biden Administration Was Right Earlier This Week to Change Course in the Obamacare Challenge Pending Before the Court

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law Dean Vikram David Amar comments on an unusual move by the U.S. Solicitor General’s office, sending a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court amending the position of the federal government in a case currently pending before the Court challenging the Affordable Care Act. Dean Amar explains why the arrival of a new administration should generally not trigger such position reversals, but he argues that the unusual circumstances—specifically the “exceptional implausibility” of the government’s prior filings—may justify the government’s action in this instance.

Read More

State v. Torres

Citation: 2021 Ark. 22

Opinion Date: February 11, 2021

Judge: Hudson

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

The Supreme Court denied the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to the circuit court's order granting a mistrial as to both the guilt and penalty phases of Defendant's capital murder trial when the event precipitating the mistrial occurred after the jury found Defendant guilty, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that the unique circumstances in this case required a mistrial as to both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial. After a retrial, a jury convicted Defendant of capital murder and first-degree battery. During the penalty phase of trial, the State's witness lunged toward Defendant in an apparent effort to assault him. After the jury left the courtroom, Defendant's counsel moved for a mistrial of the sentencing proceeding. The circuit court declared a mistrial as to both the guilt and the penalty phases of the trial. The State filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking an order directing the circuit court to preserve the guilty verdict and conduct a new sentencing hearing only. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the circuit court did not err or exceed its jurisdiction in declaring a mistrial with respect to the guilt phase of the trial.

Gentry v. State

Citation: 2021 Ark. 26

Opinion Date: February 11, 2021

Judge: Wynne

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment but reversed the additional ten years added to the sentence for a firearm enhancement, holding that Defendant's ten-year sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-121 was illegal. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction because the State met its burden of negating Defendant's justification defense; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the State to introduce evidence about Defendant's gang affiliation; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain hearsay statements attributed to the decedent as dying declarations; and (4) the trial court illegally added ten years to Gentry’s life sentence under section 16-90-121.

Manuel v. State

Citation: 2021 Ark. 24

Opinion Date: February 11, 2021

Judge: Wynne

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the denial of Appellant's pro se motion to enforce his plea agreement, holding that Appellant's motion to enforce the plea agreement represented an untimely postconviction motion, and therefore, Appellant's notice of appeal was untimely. Appellant pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and was sentenced to forty-five years' imprisonment. In his motion to enforce the plea agreement, Appellant argued that the sentence he received was not the sentence included in the plea agreement. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that both Appellant's motion to enforce the plea agreement and his notice of appeal were untimely, and therefore, neither the circuit court nor the Supreme Court had authority to grant the relief sought.