Should the Law Prohibit Anti-Fat Discrimination?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb explores the problem of fat discrimination and considers what a law of anti-fat discrimination might look like, and why it could be important. Professor Colb explores the similarities and differences between legally protected characteristics and fatness and expresses optimism that a change in law could persuade some individuals to recognize fat people for the colleagues, students, friends, partners, and neighbors that they are.

Read More

Members-Only Unionism is Lawful and Can Make Sense

SAMUEL ESTREICHER

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher responds to an op-ed by Ron Holland criticizing the recent announcement of a members-only union of 300 Google workers. Professor Estreicher points out several errors and assumptions in Mr. Holland’s piece, and he argues that, in sum, there is no good public policy case for barring or restricting members-only unionism.

Read More

United States v. Whitehead

Docket: 19-11275

Opinion Date: January 21, 2021

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act (FSA). On remand from the Fifth Circuit, the district court determined that defendant was not eligible for a sentence reduction and that, even if he were eligible, the district court would not reduce his sentence. The Fifth Circuit agreed with defendant that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because his indictment charged him with possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. The court explained that section 404 of the FSA gives district courts the discretion to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to reduce a prisoner's sentence for a "covered offense." In this case, section 2 of the FSA amended defendant's statute of conviction under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), by increasing the 50-gram threshold of cocaine base to 280 grams, and similarly amended section 841(b)(1)(B) by increasing the threshold quantity from five to 28 grams of cocaine base. Because defendant committed his section 841(b)(1)(A) offense in September 2005, and the statutory penalties for that offense were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the court concluded that defendant's offense is a "covered" one and thus he is eligible for a reduction in sentence under the FSA. However, the court held that defendant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a sentence reduction where the district court did not disregard the Fifth Circuit's mandate by denying a sentence reduction; the district court articulated its reasons and addressed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; and the district court was not required to consider defendant's post-sentencing growth. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.