The Dreadful Failure of Lethal Injection

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—comments on the decomposition of the legal injection paradigm over the past few decades, since it was first adopted in Oklahoma in 1999. Professor Sarat observes the evolution of the procedure over time and points out that none of the changes has resolved lethal injection’s fate or repaired its vexing problems.

Read More

Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: State Representative Ana-Maria Ramos Introduces Bill to Repeal Parental Consent Requirement for Birth Control

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a Texas bill that would allow teens to access birth control without parental involvement. Professor Grossman describes the current state of reproductive health laws and policies in Texas and explains why the proposed bill is so important.

Read More

United States v. De Jesus-Gomez

Docket: 17-1925

Opinion Date: March 18, 2021

Judge: Boudin

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Real Estate & Property Law

In this civil forfeiture action against a 2008 33' Contender Model Tournament Vessel, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district judge striking Appellants' answer and claims and granted the government's motion for default judgment, holding that the district court did not err. The district court entered default judgment in favor of the government due to Appellants continually missing their discovery deadlines. After Appellants once again missed a discovery deadline, the district court denied their motion for an extension. The court then granted the government's motion to strike Appellants' answer and claims and the motion for default judgment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district judge was well within her discretion in striking Appellants' answer and claims and granting the government's motion for default judgment.

United States v. Ayala

Docket: 19-1936

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: David J. Barron

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's 2019 sentence in the District of Maine for one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent with distribute forty grams or more of fentanyl, holding that the sentence was not unreasonable. Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Under the plea agreement, Defendant and the government agreed that they would both recommend a base offense level (BOL) under the Guidelines of twenty-eight. The district court, however, adopted the presentence investigation report's calculation of Defendant's guidelines sentencing range (GSR), which was based on a BOL of thirty. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.

United States v. McCullock

Docket: 20-1234

Opinion Date: March 18, 2021

Judge: Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district judge imposing three special conditions of supervised release after the revocation of Defendant's supervised release, holding that the special conditions were not unreasonable. On appeal, Defendant argued that the imposition of the conditions was procedurally unreasonable because the judge's explanation for the special conditions was insufficient and that the contested special conditions were substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the special conditions were procedurally reasonable; and (2) Defendant's substantive unreasonableness challenge failed.

Thile v. Garland

Docket: 20-1259

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Katzmann

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for relief from removal on the grounds of asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not err in affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) decision to deny Petitioner's application. Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the record did not indicate that Petitioner either faced or would face persecution on the basis of his nationality, his religion, or his political beliefs; and (2) therefore, Petitioner was not able to meet the higher threshold for his claim of withholding of removal and his CAT claim.