Latest 3 Cases: Vandross v. Stirling (Civil Rights), United States v. Myers (Criminal Law), Fleet Feet, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. (Intellectual Property)

Transitional Justice and Inauguration Poems

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois law professor Lesley M. Wexler describes how Amanda Gorman’s The Hill We Climb and Jericho Brown’s Inaugural,’ an Original Poem—as two inaugural poems—fit within the call of transitional justice. Professor Wexler explains how, read together, the two poems provide a roadmap of the transitional justice terrain the government may choose to tread.

Read More

Vandross v. Stirling

Docket: 18-6916

Opinion Date: January 26, 2021

Judge: Niemeyer

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

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner under 28 U.S.C. 2254, rejecting petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Petitioner contends that his trial counsel failed to call any forensic experts to testify on his behalf and asserted that such failure was not a strategic decision but was made out of counsel's ignorance of the availability of funding to pay experts. Even though the district court did not restrict its review by considering only the state court record, as required in the circumstances, but instead considered an affidavit of a forensic expert that petitioner presented for the first time in the district court, the court nonetheless agreed with the district court's conclusion that the expert failed to show prejudice with evidence or a proffer of evidence "of what a defensive forensic expert would have testified to and how that could have altered the trial." The court explained that the forensic expert only identified investigatory issues that he or another forensic expert could have explored and did not test or challenge any evidence actually presented to the jury so as to support a conclusion that testimony from him or another forensic expert could have made a difference.

United States v. Myers

Docket: 18-4940

Opinion Date: January 26, 2021

Judge: Niemeyer

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the legality of defendant's arrest under Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 373 (2003), which held that when a law enforcement officer finds illegal drugs in an automobile that the officer has legally stopped and searched and none of the occupants claim ownership of the drugs, it is "entirely reasonable" for the officer to infer that all the automobile's occupants are in a common enterprise and therefore to arrest them on probable cause that they are committing a crime. In this case, defendant was a passenger in an automobile that was legally stopped and search, where officers found 300 grams of fentanyl in the vehicle. The court explained that the officers reasonably believed that, in the absence of any claim to owning it, defendant and the driver were in a common enterprise that involved possession of the fentanyl, and that such circumstances are sufficient to support particularized probable cause that the two were committing a crime under Pringle.

Fleet Feet, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

Docket: 19-2390

Opinion Date: January 26, 2021

Judge: Albert Diaz

Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Trademark

Fleet Feet filed suit against NIKE, alleging that NIKE's advertising campaign with the tagline "Sport Changes Everything" infringed on Fleet Feet's trademarks "Change Everything" and "Running Changes Everything." Fleet Feet also sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted, enjoining NIKE's use of the tagline and any designation "confusingly similar" to Fleet Feet's marks. While NIKE's appeal was pending, NIKE ended its advertising campaign and disavowed any intent to continue using the tagline. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot because NIKE no longer has a legally cognizable interest in the validity of the preliminary injunction. The court explained that, at best, NIKE's argument that the "confusingly similar" language in the preliminary injunction order presents only a potential controversy, which cannot sustain this appeal. In regard to NIKE's contention that the injunction bond is a live issue, the court agreed that the bond keeps the case as a whole from being moot but it does not do the same for the appeal. In this case, if the district court ultimately finds that NIKE's "Sport Changes Everything" campaign infringed on Fleet Feet's marks, the preliminary injunction will have been, at worst, harmless error. If it does not, NIKE may recover on the bond. Either way, the court explained that the district court must be the first to resolve NIKE's challenge on the merits. The court found no good reason to vacate the district court's order and opinion granting a preliminary opinion, remanding for further proceedings as necessary.