Federal judge rightly upset over wrongful jailing of Michael Cohen

That's the title of my latest piece in the Hill.  Please click on the link for the whole article and let me know your thoughts.  Here's the intro:

Federal district judge Alvin Hellerstein was rightly outraged that a probation officer acting on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons had Michael Cohen arrested because he was writing a book about President Donald Trump and because Cohen would not agree to give up his First Amendment rights as part of his supervised release. The judge found that “the purpose of transferring Mr. Cohen from furlough and home confinement to jail is retaliatory, and it’s retaliatory because of his desire to exercise his First Amendment rights to publish a book and to discuss anything about the book or anything else he wants on social media and with others."
It is almost unheard of to see a federal judge get upset with a probation officer or the Bureau of Prisons. That’s because there is a fiction in the criminal justice system that a probation officer is an “arm of the court.” Criminal law practitioners, however, know the truth about probation officers — they often are advocates for the executive branch (prosecutors) and can push harder than even prosecutors do for draconian prison sentences.
Look at what happened with Cohen — he was arrested without approval from a judge and without his lawyers having the ability to argue his position with a judge before the arrest. And what was the supposed justification by the arresting officer? Cohen was “antagonistic” and did not want to sign a document outlining conditions of his ongoing release.
DOJ tried to come to the defense of the prison system and probation, arguing that Cohen’s lawyer was trying to “haggle” with the probation officer about wearing an ankle monitor. The judge made quick work of that argument: “What’s an attorney for if he is not going to negotiate an agreement with his client?”
You might be thinking that it is outrageous for a probation or prison officer to have this much power. If so, it’s even worse than you think. Although prosecutors and defense lawyers are not permitted to speak to the judge without the other side present, probation officers typically meet with judges alone, making their recommendations in secret without the parties getting a chance to be heard. And judges often defer to prison officials.

Judge finds Michael Cohen’s detention was wrong and orders him released

Good for Judge Alvin Hellerstein. The probation officer had Cohen detained when he wouldn’t agree to a gag order (because he was writing a book about President Trump). Cohen sued and said the arrest was retaliatory and violated the First Amendment. The judge agreed. From the Washington Post:

“I make the finding that the purpose of transferring Mr. Cohen from furlough and home confinement to jail is retaliatory, and it’s retaliatory because of his desire to exercise his First Amendment rights to publish a book and to discuss anything about the book or anything else he wants on social media and with others,” Hellerstein said in a scathing ruling issued Thursday morning. “In 21 years of being a judge and sentencing people and looking at the terms and conditions of supervised release, I have never seen such a clause.”

 The judge also made quick work of Cohen’s lawyer fighting for various conditions:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Allison Rovner argued that Cohen’s lawyer Jeffrey Levine tried to haggle with the probation officer on his requirement that Cohen wear an ankle monitor, saying it was a condition reserved for “violent” convicts. There was nothing wrong with Levine trying to negotiate for his client, the judge said, and the attempt to debate the terms should not have been cause to imprison him.
“What’s an attorney for if he is not going to negotiate an agreement with his client?” the judge said.
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment on whether prosecutors intend to appeal.
Danya Perry, one of Cohen’s attorneys, called the ruling a victory for the First Amendment. “This principle transcends politics and we are gratified that the rule of law prevails,” Perry said.
Cohen’s legal team also includes lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Alabama’s history of enacting laws designed to suppress people of color is well-documented."

That's Judge Gayles, sitting by designation in the 11th Circuit, in dissent in this voting rights case:

Alabama’s history of enacting laws designed to suppress people of color is well-documented. See Lynch v. Alabama, No. 08-S-450-NE, 2011 WL 13186739, at *12–18 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 2011) (detailing Alabama’s extensive history of legislation designed to disenfranchise and limit the power and influence of its Black citizens), aff’d in part, vacated in part, remanded sub nom., I.L., 739 F.3d 1273. The majority opinion essentially argues that we should not penalize Alabama’s legislators for Alabama’s past; rather, we should start with a clean slate when reviewing the Photo ID Law. But this is not what the law commands us to do. Alabama’s history of voter suppression is relevant here and provides a wealth of direct and circumstantial evidence that should be considered at trial.14
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. 

Judge Branch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Carnes:

At the end of 2015, advocacy groups and individual Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Alabama’s Secretary of State, John Merrill, challenging Alabama’s 2011 Photo Voter Identification Law (hereinafter, the “voter ID law”), passed by the Alabama legislature as House Bill 19 and codified at Ala. Code § 17-9-30. The voter ID law took effect in June 2014 and requires all Alabama voters to present a photo ID when casting in-person or absentee votes. Plaintiffs allege the law has a racially discriminatory purpose and effect that violates the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act (the “VRA”). Specifically, Plaintiffs claim the law violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution; Section 2 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10301; and Section 201 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10501. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of Alabama’s voter ID Law. Secretary Merrill denies that the law is discriminatory, arguing that Alabama accepts so many types of acceptable IDs that most Alabamians already possess photo ID and voters who do not have one can obtain one easily.
Secretary Merrill filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts, while Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on one claim and one issue.1 The district court granted Secretary Merrill’s motion and Plaintiffs-Appellants timely appealed.
Because Plaintiffs have failed to identify any genuine disputes of material facts and because no reasonable factfinder could find, based on the evidence presented, that Alabama’s voter ID law is discriminatory, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of State for the State of Alabama.

Judge Federico Moreno is now senior status

As of July 17, Judge Moreno took senior status.  He served the District for 30 years.  A big thank you and congratulations to one of the longest (THE longest?) active serving judges in our District.  In addition to his service, he will also be remembered for his legacy of championing his clerks and having them appointed as judges and other important positions.  His judging tree (like Belichick's coaching tree) is extremely impressive. 

Although we do not yet have an official nominee for Judge Moreno's seat, it is widely known that David Leibowitz is being vetted for that slot.  Leibowitz is a great and very smart guy, so hopefully that process can move forward. 

Will Florida felons be permitted to vote?

It's a huge fight.

Even though Florida voters passed a Constitutional Amendment saying felons get to vote, there has been a lot of wrangling to stop this from happening.  A district judge said that the State was putting up too many hurdles for voting.  So all looked okay... but then the 11th Circuit stayed that order. Up to the Supreme Court it went.  And, shocker, Justice Thomas, denied the motion to vacate the stay.

There were three dissenters (Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan; we need more women on the Court).

So the likelihood is that the 11th Circuit won't get to this one before the November election and 1.4 million people won't be allowed to vote, which is a tragedy.  But there is still hope for the next election.

And there is still quite a bit of litigation to follow.  The latest is this motion to recuse Judges Luck, Lagoa, and Brasher. 

Reminds me of Omar Little: