A Constitutional Commitment to Access to Literacy: Bridging the Chasm Between Negative and Positive Rights

EVAN CAMINKER

Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker discusses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in which that court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause secures schoolchildren a fundamental right to a “basic minimum education” that “can plausibly impart literacy.” Caminker—one of the co-counsel for the plaintiffs in that case—explains why the decision is so remarkable and why the supposed dichotomy between positive and negative rights is not as stark as canonically claimed.

Read More

Garcia v. Blevins

Docket: 19-20494

Opinion Date: April 30, 2020

Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

After Phillip Garcia, Jr. was shot and killed by an officer, Garcia's parents filed suit against the officers for violation of Garcia's constitutional rights. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officer. The court held that, while the officer may have violated Garcia's right to be free from deadly force, the law was not clearly established at the time where it was undisputed that Garcia was aware of the officer's presence and that the officer ordered Garcia to put down his weapon, but Garcia refused to do so.

United States v. Douglas

Docket: 19-30488

Opinion Date: April 30, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant appealed his sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371 to commit a deprivation of civil rights, an offense defined by 18 U.S.C. 242. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's application of a four-level dangerous-weapon enhancement, a three-level bodily injury enhancement, and a six-level public official or color-of-law enhancement. The court held that the district court did not procedurally err in sentencing defendant, and that the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a downward variance. In this case, defendant failed to demonstrate that his within-guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable, and the district court expressly acknowledged its consideration of defendant's arguments before imposing a 60-month sentence.

United States v. Nava

Docket: 17-51077

Opinion Date: April 30, 2020

Judge: Higginbotham

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's two concurrent 480-month sentences for drug-trafficking offenses. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the methamphetamine seized in Gulfport was relevant conduct to his cocaine trafficking convictions; because defendant's 480-month sentence falls within the statutory maximum term, the district court's factfinding by a preponderance of the evidence did not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment; and, even if the district court committed plain error in imposing an offense-level adjustment for abusing a position of trust, defendant could not prove that any error affected his substantial rights.

United States v. Rodriguez-Saldana

Docket: 19-50949

Opinion Date: April 30, 2020

Judge: Higginbotham

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to felony illegal reentry. In this case, defendant was in the United States to receive necessary eye surgery. Defendant contends that the prospect that he would receive surgery while in prison was a "dominant factor" in the sentence imposed, which would be improper under the Supreme Court's decision in Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 332 (2011). In reviewing for clear and obvious error, the court did not find enough indication that the district court extended defendant's sentence to allow him time to have eye surgery. The court held that the district court's statements as to the possible availability of eye surgery are not clear error, nor is the district court's recommendation that defendant be sent to a specific medical facility.

United States v. Smith

Docket: 18-10476

Opinion Date: April 30, 2020

Judge: Carl E. Stewart

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion seeking vacatur of his sentence in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which rendered a residual clause similar to the one found in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied the motion, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent (at the time) that foreclosed vagueness challenges to section 924(c)(3)(B), and concluded that section 924(c)(3)(B) was not unconstitutionally vague. The Fifth Circuit granted granted a certificate of appealability. The court held that the Supreme Court abrogated the precedent that the district court relied on in denying the section 2255 motion, agreeing with defendant that United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), rendered section 924(c)(3)'s residual clause unconstitutional. However, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion on alternative grounds, holding that defendant's predicate convictions for bank robbery and attempted murder qualify as crimes of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A). Therefore, Davis does not impact his convictions.