What Should Democrats Do About Republicans’ Insistence on Lining Their Own Pockets With the Stimulus Plan?

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the ongoing negotiations in Congress over the stimulus bill that would purportedly start to address the present economic crisis. Buchanan argues that while Democrats are right to try to stop Republicans from writing a huge unrestricted corporate handout into the bill, they will have to agree to something quickly—and the sooner the better.

Read More

Will Coronavirus Stop America from Carrying Out Executions?

AUSTIN SARAT

Guest columnist Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—points out one unusual effect of the COVID-19 pandemic: deferring the executions of death row inmates. Sarat observes that while past pandemics have not affected the rate at which states have executed inmates, last week the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted 60-day stays in the execution sentences of two men, and other states seem poised to follow suit.

Read More

Steiner v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society

Dockets: 19-6027, 19-6037

Opinion Date: March 23, 2020

Judge: Shodeen

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders dismissing debtors' individual chapter 13 cases with a bar to re-filing for 180 days. The panel held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion where debtors acted in bad faith. In this case, debtors have filed eight chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions between 2010 and 2018, and the bankruptcy court found that debtors' filings were part of a long-running scheme to manipulate and abuse the Bankruptcy Code and the bankruptcy system to the extreme detriment of their creditors, particularly Wilmington Savings.

United States v. Turner

Docket: 19-1191

Opinion Date: March 23, 2020

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized at his residence, as well as statements he made to officers at his residence and at the police station. The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause where defendant had prior drug convictions for possession and manufacturing/delivery of controlled substances; a search of the trash at his residence yielded evidence of illegal drug activity; and a rental car was located in the driveway along with defendant's own vehicle. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Franks hearing where defendant failed to make either the requisite showing of intentional or reckless falsehood or omission, or that the probable cause analysis would change if the affidavit was modified as suggested.

Campos-Julio v. Barr

Docket: 18-3487

Opinion Date: March 23, 2020

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal of the IJ's denial of cancellation of removal relief and denial of petitioner's motion to remand. The court held that the BIA did not engage in impermissible factfinding when it agreed with petitioner that one of the IJ's findings was clearly erroneous. In this case, the BIA evaluated the same record as the IJ; noted the IJ's factual error and its lack of prejudicial impact; and concluded after weighing and evaluating the other evidence that exceptional and extremely unusual hardship was not established. The court also held that the BIA's weighing of hardship factors was a discretionary determination beyond the court's jurisdiction. Finally, the court held that the BIA did not abuse its considerable discretion in concluding that petitioner failed to provide any new and previously unavailable evidence regarding his qualifying relative.