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

Severability in Larger Constitutional Context: Part Five in our Series on the California v. Texas Challenge to the Affordable Care Act

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this fifth 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 discuss severability in a larger context and explain why, in their view the majority and minority positions are partly right and partly wrong. The authors conclude that if the Court invalidates and enjoins the individual mandate, it should reject the challengers’ substantive express inseverability claim that the entire ACA remainder should be enjoined.

Read More

United States v. LaGrange

Docket: 19-2307

Opinion Date: December 9, 2020

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his person and vehicle after his arrest. Defendant conditional pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and firearms offenses. The court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant unlawfully possessed a firearm, which justified an investigative seizure. In this case, the informant's tip contained a detailed description of a weapon allegedly in defendant's possession and the officers were able to corroborate elements of the informant's tip. Furthermore, defendant's furtive behavior in the parking lots further supported reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.