Latest Case: United States v. King (Criminal Law)

Pope Francis’s Statement Endorsing Same-Sex Civil Unions Undermines the Moral Legitimacy and Legal Arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

DAVID S. KEMP, CHARLES E. BINKLEY

David S. Kemp, a professor at Berkeley Law, and Charles E. Binkley, MD, the director of bioethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, consider the implications of Pope Francis’s recently revealed statement endorsing same-sex civil unions as they pertain to a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Kemp and Binkley argue that the Pope’s statement undermines the moral legitimacy of the Catholic organization’s position and casts a shadow on the premise of its legal arguments.

Read More

Stigma and the Oral Argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

LESLIE C. GRIFFIN

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin explains why stigma is a central concept that came up during oral argument before the Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Griffin points out that some religions have long supported racial discrimination, citing their religious texts, but courts prohibited such discrimination, even by religious entities. Griffin argues that just as religious organizations should not enjoy religious freedom to stigmatize people of color, so they should not be able to discriminate—and thus stigmatize—people based on sexual orientation.

Read More

United States v. King

Docket: 18-50122

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Edward R. Korman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

On remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), the Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). The panel applied United States v. Johnson, 2020 WL 6268027 (9th Cir. Oct. 26, 2020), and rejected defendant's Rehaif argument. In this case, as in Johnson, plain-error review applies when the defendant fails to challenge the district court's omission of the knowledge-of-status element now required under Rehaif. Furthermore, defendant's uncontroverted presentence report shows that he pleaded guilty to two felonies and served sentences of greater than one year for each. Therefore, defendant cannot prevail on plain error review.