The Supreme Court Limbers Up to Aid and Abet Trump’s Coup

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes how the U.S. Supreme Court is readying itself to declare Trump the winner of the election. Professor Buchanan points out that no court acting in good faith would apply the text of the Constitution or existing Supreme Court precedents in a way that would allow any of this scheme to see the light of day, but based on what Justice Kavanaugh has written and what Justice Gorsuch strongly suggests, the Court might not even have that minimum amount of good faith.

Read More

If the Challengers Prevail on the Merits of the ACA California v. Texas Case, What is the Appropriate Remedy and What Effect Should the Ruling Have on the Entirety of the ACA? Part Four in a Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this fourth of a series of columns examining the California v. Texas case challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone consider what the appropriate remedy should be if the challengers prevail on the merits of the case. The authors explain why enjoining the 2017 amendment, which zeroed out the potential tax penalty for failure to maintain the specified health insurance coverage, is a more appropriate remedy than striking down the entire ACA.

Read More

The U.S. Supreme Court Cannot Determine the Election Result

AUSTIN SARAT, DANIEL B. EDELMAN

Amherst College Associate Provost Austin Sarat and attorney Daniel B. Edelman argue that there is nothing the Supreme Court can do to prevent governors from certifying slates of electors that actually reflect the vote of the people in their states. Sarat and Edelman explain why Bush v Gore is both inapplicable, and by its own terms, never supposed to be used as precedent.

Read More

Koppers, Inc. v. Trotter

Citation: 2020 Ark. 354

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Rhonda K. Wood

Areas of Law: Class Action, Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting class certification of Plaintiffs' complaint, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. Plaintiffs were hourly employees of Koppers, Inc. Plaintiffs filed this action against Koppers alleging that Koppers did not pay them for working overtime in violation of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), Ark. Code Ann. 11-4-211(a). Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class. The circuit court granted the motion. Koppers appealed, arguing that its liability could not be established on a classwide basis because whether a plaintiff could recover depended on individualized facts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's findings on commonality, predominance, and superiority were not in error.

Buonauito v. Gibson

Citation: 2020 Ark. 352

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Josephine L. Hart

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Transportation Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiffs' illegal exaction suit that sought to enjoin the expenditure of highway funds collected pursuant to Amendment 91 of the Arkansas Constitution for two highway projects, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that Amendment 91 funds were legally designated for the projects. The two projects at issue were intended to improve portions of Interstate 30 and Interstate 630 in Little Rock by widening portions of the interstate highways from six lanes to eight or more lanes. The Arkansas Department of Transportation selected the projects to be funded by Amendment 91 money. Plaintiffs, Arkansas citizens and taxpayers, filed an illegal exaction lawsuit praying to enjoin the expenditure of funds for the projects, arguing that the projects were not "four-lane highway improvements," as required by Amendment 91. The circuit court found that the projects were covered by Amendment 91. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the repeated reference to "four-lane highways" and the lack of a specific reference to six-lane interstate highways means the Amendment 91 funds cannot be used for six-lane interstate highways; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred in dismissing the illegal exaction suit.

Hall v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 358

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Wynne

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the county where Appellant was incarcerated pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101, holding that Appellant stated no ground in the petition on which the writ could issue. Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery, first-degree battery, and attempted rape and was sentenced as a habitual offender. In his habeas corpus petition, Appellant asserted that he was deprived of his right to an appeal due to his counsel's procedural error, that his conviction for attempted rape was not supported by sufficient evidence, and that his parole eligibility date was miscalculated. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant stated no ground in the petition on which the writ could issue under Arkansas law.

Hampton v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 344

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by certain persons and sentencing him to life imprisonment, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that Appellant was fit to proceed to trial. After he was charged with first-degree murder and possession of a firearm Defendant moved for a competency determination. The circuit court found Defendant was not fit to proceed and committed him to the custody of the Arkansas State Hospital until he was restored to fitness. After Defendant underwent restoration proceedings the circuit court again held a hearing and found that Defendant was fit to proceed to trial. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that Defendant was fit to stand trial.

Lewis v. Payne

Citation: 2020 Ark. 345

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101, holding that none of Appellant's allegations were cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Appellant entered a guilty plea to three counts of first-degree terroristic threatening and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions, his arrest was illegal, and his guilty plea was rendered involuntary by flaws in the plea proceedings. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's habeas claim was properly denied.

Lewis v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 350

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Hudson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Appellant's pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to grant the relief sought. In two separate criminal cases, Appellant pled guilty to multiple charges of commercial burglary. In his coram nobis petition, Appellant argued that his guilty plea was coerced when two police officers threatened to charge his wife. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claim of coercion was unsubstantiated and that, even if it were substantiated, Appellant failed to pursue the claim with diligence.

Rea v. Kelley

Citation: 2020 Ark. 347

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Karen R. Baker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to state a basis for issuance of the writ. Appellant was convicted of four counts of computer exploitation of a child in the first degree and twenty counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of corpus alleging that his convictions were invalid for several reasons. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that the circuit court erred by denying habeas relief.

Watson v. Payne

Citation: 2020 Ark. 356

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Rhonda K. Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying relief. Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In this habeas petition, Appellant alleged that the arrest warrant was invalid, the trial court lacked the authority to amend the information, and the sentencing order was void. The circuit court dismissed the habeas corpus petition on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant's first two claims had been raised and rejected before and Appellant failed to bring new facts to enliven the claims, that failure constituted an abuse of the writ; and (2) the arguments Appellant made in support of his third argument lacked merit.

American Honda Motor Co. v. Walther

Citation: 2020 Ark. 349

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Karen R. Baker

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the director of the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) and dismissing American Honda Motor Company's challenge to the DFA's denial of its request for a corporate tax refund, holding that the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of DFA. American Honda filed an action for judicial relief under the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, Ark. Code Ann. 26-18-101 et seq., challenging DFA's decision to deny its request for a corporate tax refund. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of DFA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) judicial review of DFA's statutory interpretation of the Tax Procedure Act is de novo; and (2) while the circuit court improperly gave great deference to DFA's interpretation of the Tax Procedure Act, the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of DFA.