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

Aldridge v. Mississippi Department of Corrections

Docket: 20-60311

Opinion Date: March 9, 2021

Judge: Jacques Loeb Wiener, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit joined the Fourth Circuit in holding that the Fair Labor Standards Act preempts redundant state law tort claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation when the state's law does not provide for minimum wages and overtime compensation. In this case, Mississippi does not have state labor laws governing minimum wage or overtime, so it would be impossible for Employees to state a claim for wage and hour violations under state law independent of the FLSA. Furthermore, it would be impossible for Employees to state a claim under the FLSA because sovereign immunity bars suit against the DOC. The court explained that the state law claims based on violations of the FLSA similarly fail because of preemption. Therefore, the court concluded that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate. The court affirmed all dispositions of the district court.

Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Docket: 18-31162

Opinion Date: March 9, 2021

Judge: Priscilla R. Owen

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics, Personal Injury

The Fifth Circuit granted panel rehearing; denied rehearing en banc; withdrew its prior opinion; and substituted the following opinion. Frank Williams, Jr. filed suit in Louisiana state court against his former employer, Lockheed Martin, seeking to recover damages for asbestos-related injuries. After Williams passed away, his children were substituted as plaintiffs. Lockheed Martin removed the case under federal officer removal jurisdiction and the district court granted summary judgment for Lockheed Martin, issuing sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel for improper ex parte communications. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court properly considered the full state-court record as it existed at the time of removal and Lockheed Martin has met the requirements for federal officer removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(2)(1). In this case, Lockheed Martin alleged the requisite nexus and has stated sufficient facts to make out a colorable Boyle defense. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to any of the challenged discovery orders. The court applied Louisiana law and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lockheed Martin on plaintiffs' survival and wrongful death claims. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing sanctions on plaintiffs' attorney and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $10,000 in attorney's fees.

Byrd v. Lamb

Docket: 20-20217

Opinion Date: March 9, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss in a Bivens action brought by plaintiff, alleging that defendant, an agent for the Department of Homeland Security, used excessive force to effectuate an unlawful seizure. The court concluded that plaintiff's action is precluded by the court's binding case law in Oliva v. Nivar, 973 F.3d 438 (5th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed, 89 U.S.L.W. 28 (U.S. Jan. 29, 2021) (No. 20-1060). In Oliva, the court held that Bivens claims are limited to three situations and plaintiff's case presents a new context. The court explained that the incident between the parties involved defendant's suspicion of plaintiff harassing and stalking his son, not a narcotics investigation as was the case in Bivens. Furthermore, defendant did not manacle plaintiff in from of his family, nor strip-search him; defendant did not discriminate based on sex; and defendant did not fail to provide medical attention. Furthermore, in this case, as in Oliva, separation of powers counsels against extending Bivens. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims against defendant.

United States v. Emakoji

Docket: 20-10363

Opinion Date: March 9, 2021

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant was indicted for engaging in a monetary transaction in property derived from a specified unlawful activity. Although defendant entered a plea agreement, when it came time to plead guilty, he requested two continuances based on his fears about traveling to the courthouse during the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court declined and ordered defendant to obtain housing in the Northern District of Texas. Although the district court had previously allowed defendant to reside in Alabama, the court concluded that defendant's reluctance to appear calls into question his ability to comply with the district court's conditions. The Fifth Circuit concluded that defendant's claim regarding the in-person rearraignment is not an immediately appealable collateral order, and thus dismissed that portion of the appeal and did not address its merits. However, the court addressed the merits of the claim questioning the housing requirement and concluded that it did not violate defendant's Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail. The court explained that, where a defendant expresses his reluctance to appear at such an in-person hearing, a district court can reasonably amend release conditions to ensure his appearance. The court also concluded that the district court's housing requirement did not violate procedural due process. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments against the housing requirement and affirmed the housing condition.