Dear House Judiciary Committee: In Questioning William Barr, Employ the Ethics Complaint That 27 Distinguished DC Lawyers Filed Wednesday

FREDERICK BARON, DENNIS AFTERGUT, AUSTIN SARAT

Frederick Baron, former associate deputy attorney general and director of the Executive Office for National Security in the Department of Justice, Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, and Austin Sarat, Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College, call upon the House Judiciary Committee to carefully read the ethics complaint by 27 distinguished DC lawyers against William Barr before questioning him today, July 28, 2020.

Read More

Patel v. Hamilton Medical Center, Inc.

Docket: 19-13088

Opinion Date: July 30, 2020

Judge: William Holcombe Pryor, Jr.

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

After the Medical Center suspended plaintiff's medical privileges, plaintiff filed suit against the Medical Center, an injunction against the suspension, and a declaration that the Health Care Quality Improvement Act provided no immunity from damages to the Medical Center. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff contends only that federal question jurisdiction exists over his suit, but a request for declaratory relief that a federal law does not entitle the opposing party to a defense ordinarily does not raise a federal question under 28 U.S.C.1331. The court explained that, because the Declaratory Judgment Act does not enlarge the court's jurisdiction, plaintiff must still assert an underlying ground for federal court jurisdiction. In this case, plaintiff's complaint does not establish that the Medical Center could file a coercive action under federal law. Furthermore, a plaintiff cannot create federal question jurisdiction by seeking a declaration that a federal defense does not protect the defendant. Therefore, plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Clemons v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

Docket: 16-13020

Opinion Date: July 30, 2020

Judge: Marcus

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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of capital murder for killing a DEA special agent. The court agreed with the district court that the 31 claims in the petition are time-barred and that the extraordinary remedy of equitable tolling cannot excuse the simple negligence of an attorney. In this case, petitioner alleged that his state petition was not properly filed because his attorneys neither paid the filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed without paying the fee until more than one year after his conviction had become final. Petitioner further alleged that counsel received misinformation from the state court clerk's office and thus the federal limitations period should be equitably tolled. The court also held that, although petitioner's Atkins claim was timely, it failed on the merits because the state court's determination that petitioner failed to demonstrate either significant subaverage intellectual functioning or significant deficits in adaptive functioning was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

United States v. Smith

Docket: 18-13969

Opinion Date: July 30, 2020

Judge: Edward Earl Carnes

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for three counts of Hobbs Act robbery, one count of carjacking, and four counts of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of those crimes of violence. The court rejected defendant's evidentiary claims of error, holding that the admission of eyewitness identification did not violate due process and there was no abuse of discretion in admitting a music video of defendant's rap song. In regard to defendant's conviction for Hobbs Act robbery, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant's substantively incorrect jury instruction and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant's robbery affected interstate commerce. The court also held that Section 403 of the First Step Act does not apply to defendant's offenses, and thus 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(C) required the district court to impose consecutive 25-year minimum sentences for defendant's convictions on Counts Four, Six, and Eight. Finally, the court held that defendant's 1,105-month sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment for being grossly disproportionate in light of his crime and was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion.

AEGIS Electric & Gas International Services Ltd. v. ECI Management LLC

Docket: 19-11114

Opinion Date: July 30, 2020

Judge: Hull

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

AEGIS filed suit alleging that it does not have a duty to defend or indemnify its insured ECI in an underlying state court action brought by a former tenant against ECI. In the underlying action, the tenant alleged that ECI wrongfully withheld the security deposits of current and former tenants in violation of Georgia's security deposit law. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of AEGIS, holding that AEGIS has a duty to defend ECI in the underlying state court lawsuit against it because that action and certain relief sought, if proved, would constitute a covered "Loss" under the insurance policy. Although an award of the allegedly wrongfully withheld security deposit would not constitute a "Loss" under the policy, the court explained that any award of attorney's fees that ECI might become obligated to pay as part of the judgment in the underlying litigation would also fall within the policy's definition of "Loss." The court held that any award of attorney's fees under Georgia's security deposit law could constitute a potential "Loss" under the policy, and thus AEGIS maintains a duty to defend ECI. The court declined to offer any opinion as to whether AEGIS, in addition to its duty to defend, has any duty to indemnify ECI.