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. Requena

Docket: 18-1906

Opinion Date: November 4, 2020

Judge: Debra Ann Livingston

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Second Circuit affirmed Defendants Requena and Raymond's conviction for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute a controlled substance analogue. Defendants were convicted under the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act, which provides that substances with chemical and pharmacological properties "substantially similar" to those of substances listed on schedule I or II are treated for the purposes of federal law as controlled substances. The court held that the Analogue Act's instruction to treat a substance with chemical and pharmacological properties “substantially similar” to those of a scheduled substance as a controlled substance in schedule I is not unconstitutionally vague on its face, certain Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government's expert to testify; the district court correctly instructed the jury that it need not unanimously agree on which of the six synthetic cannabinoids charged in the indictment meet the statutory definition of a controlled substance analogue; the district court made all of the factual findings necessary to calculate defendants' base offense level at sentencing; and, because defendants are entitled to no relief in connection with their drug conviction, their money laundering conviction likewise stands.