For years, the National Rifle Association and its allies had tried to get the court to say more about gun rights, even as mass shootings may have caused the justices to shy away from taking on new disputes over gun limits. Justice Clarence Thomas has been among members of the court who have complained that lower courts are treating the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” as a second-class right.
The lawsuit in New York began as a challenge to the city’s prohibition on carrying a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside the city limits, either to a shooting range or a second home.
Lower courts upheld the regulation, but the Supreme Court’s decision in January to step into the case signaled a revived interest in gun rights from a court with two new justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both appointees of President Donald Trump.
Officials at both the city and state level scrambled to find a way to remove the case from the justices’ grasp. Not only did the city change its regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons to locations outside New York’s five boroughs, but the state enacted a law barring cities from imposing the challenged restrictions.
“There is no case or controversy because New York City has repealed the ordinance and the New York state Legislature has acted to make sure it remains repealed,” said Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel and vice president of the gun control group Brady’s legal action project.
But those moves failed to get the court to dismiss the case, although the justices are likely to ask at arguments about whether there’s anything left for them to decide.
Paul Clement, who represents three New York residents and New York’s National Rifle Association affiliate challenging the transportation ban, said in an email that among the reasons the case remains alive legally is that the court frowns on tactical moves of the sort employed by the city and state that are meant to frustrate the justices’ review of an issue.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Monday, December 02, 2019
Welcome back
It's the first Monday in December... the year is just about over. And the Supreme Court has decided to hear a big gun case, the first in 10 years. From the AP:
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Happy Thanksgiving
Some things I’m thankful for:
1. United States v. Booker.
2. Judges who downward vary and don’t have trial penalties.
3. Brady v. Maryland.
4. Prosecutors who have open files and turn over witness statements.
5. Judges who order prosecutors to turn over witness statements and exhibit lists before well in advance of trial.
6. Self-surrender for initial appearances and for serving sentences.
7. Magistrate judges who issue reasonable bonds.
8. Appellate judges who are not afraid to reverse.
9. Defense lawyers who fight and the wonderful criminal defense bar in SDFLA.
10. Clients who have the guts to fight.
Keep up the list in the comments.
1. United States v. Booker.
2. Judges who downward vary and don’t have trial penalties.
3. Brady v. Maryland.
4. Prosecutors who have open files and turn over witness statements.
5. Judges who order prosecutors to turn over witness statements and exhibit lists before well in advance of trial.
6. Self-surrender for initial appearances and for serving sentences.
7. Magistrate judges who issue reasonable bonds.
8. Appellate judges who are not afraid to reverse.
9. Defense lawyers who fight and the wonderful criminal defense bar in SDFLA.
10. Clients who have the guts to fight.
Keep up the list in the comments.
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
“The Case of the Polite Bank Robber.”
The introduction to this per curiam opinion (clearly written by Judge Rosenbaum), United States v. Roberto Perez, is entertaining:
Congrats to Tracy Dreispul of the FPD's office and to UM Law Professor Ricardo Bascuas for the win.
If this were an Encyclopedia Brown mystery, it might be called The Case of the Polite Bank Robber.1 Without any weapons, Defendant-Appellant Roberto Arturo Perez calmly walked into two different banks. He handed a teller at each bank a note with instructions using words like “please” and “thank you,” made no reference to any type of weapon, bargained pleasantly with one teller for $5,000, and allowed another teller to leave the teller’s post and report the robbery while it was ongoing.
Of course, there’s no such thing as a good bank robbery. But from the perspective of the Sentencing Guidelines, there are certainly less bad ones. All bank robberies charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) necessarily involve implicit or explicit threats of some type, since they must all occur by “force and violence” or “intimidation” to qualify as bank robberies under that statute.2 But the Guidelines more harshly punish defendants who use implicit or explicit threats of death to accomplish bank robberies than those who employ lesser threats in their crimes.
Here, we decide whether the district court clearly erred in concluding that Perez’s conduct and choice of language would have instilled in a reasonable person a fear of death, justifying application of the Guidelines’ threat-of-death enhancement. In other words, we must evaluate whether Perez’s bank robberies were of the less bad variety, by Guidelines standards. After careful consideration and with the benefit of oral argument, we hold that they were. We therefore vacate Perez’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
1. For the uninitiated, the Encyclopedia Brown children’s book series, written by Donald J. Sobel, follows the adventures of Leroy Brown (not the Leroy Brown of Jim Croce notoriety). Brown was a fictional, highly intelligent, boy sleuth who solved mysteries.
Congrats to Tracy Dreispul of the FPD's office and to UM Law Professor Ricardo Bascuas for the win.
Monday, November 25, 2019
Judge Roy Altman does the right thing and sentences Yujing Zhang to time served
The prosecutors asked for 18 months on this trespass case even though the guidelines were 0-6. From the Miami Herald:
There is a lot of pressure on new judges to give guideline sentences even though the experiences judges rarely give guideline sentences anymore. And the government has a new strategy with the new judges to ask for high-end sentences or above-guideline sentences to dissuade them from giving downward variances. Credit to Judge Altman for rejecting the government's request.
On a spring afternoon, a Chinese businesswoman wearing a gray evening gown was so determined to meet President Donald Trump that she bluffed her way into his private Palm Beach club, saying at first she wanted to go to the pool, but later insisted she was on a mission to attend a gala event at Mar-a-Lago.
Yujing Zhang was let in by the Secret Service and club security staff after they confused her last name with that of a member, but was arrested soon after her mysterious arrival on March 30.
On Monday, the 33-year-old Chinese woman appeared in a Fort Lauderdale federal courtroom, where she was sentenced to eight months behind bars — essentially time served. She had been found guilty in September of entering a restricted area and lying to federal agents about it.
In handing down the sentence, U.S. District Judge Roy Altman rejected a request by the U.S. attorney’s office that he sentence her to 18 months.
The sentence, likely to be followed by Zhang’s deportation to China, writes an end to a bizarre court case in which the defendant, a woman with limited English skills and no legal training, represented herself — clumsily and ineffectively, for the most part.
She had fired the public defender’s office, though was still receiving advice on the side.
There is a lot of pressure on new judges to give guideline sentences even though the experiences judges rarely give guideline sentences anymore. And the government has a new strategy with the new judges to ask for high-end sentences or above-guideline sentences to dissuade them from giving downward variances. Credit to Judge Altman for rejecting the government's request.
Friday, November 22, 2019
President Trump officially nominates Andrew Brasher to the 11th Circuit
It's hard to imagine a court going through more change than the 11th Circuit. Here's the link to the WH press release. Brasher will fill Ed Carnes' seat if he is confirmed. He will have a tougher time than Luck and Lagoa, who were easily confirmed.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
Judge Barbara Lagoa confirmed to the 11th Circuit
The vote was 80-15
Congratulations Judge Lagoa!
The 11th Circuit has now technically “flipped.” But both Luck and Lagoa are much more down the middle than their predecessors.
Congratulations Judge Lagoa!
The 11th Circuit has now technically “flipped.” But both Luck and Lagoa are much more down the middle than their predecessors.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Judge Robert Luck confirmed to the 11th Circuit
The vote was 64-31.
Congrats Judge Luck!
Up tomorrow, Barbara Lagoa.
Congrats Judge Luck!
Up tomorrow, Barbara Lagoa.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Bruce Bagley charged with money laundering
Yes, that Bruce Bagley. The professor of drug cartels and dirty money. Oh boy.
From the Herald:
From the Herald:
A University of Miami professor who studies organized crime and drug cartels was accused Monday of engaging in a plot to launder millions in dirty money from Venezuela.
Federal prosecutors in New York announced Bruce Bagley, 73, was charged with money laundering and conspiracy after he “opened bank accounts for the express purpose of laundering money for corrupt foreign nationals.”
Bagley is a longtime UM international relations professor who wrote the book “Drug Trafficking, Organized Crime, and Violence in the Americas Today.” Over the years, Bagley has been a go-to quote for the media on topics including the failures of the U.S. war on drugs, violence in Haiti and, yes, corruption in Venezuela.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)