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
On Jan. 24 this year, unrest broke out in the camp. According to corrections officers who work at the facility, the discovery of more than 50 prohibited cellphones in a single day triggered a lockdown, which in turn led to an inmate strike.
The labor strike, according to corrections officers, included a mass refusal by inmates to eat in the facilities’ food hall.
A Jan. 25 police report of a possible escaped inmate, documented in Federal Bureau of Prison’s documents, only increased tensions. A headcount showed there was no escape, but corrections officers suspect it was someone actually breaking into the compound to deliver contraband.
A lawsuit accusing the federal court system of treating nearly a billion dollars in online access fees like a slush fund got a favorable reception on Monday from an appeals court, where the main question that judges seemed interested in debating was how to calculate the extent to which the public was bilked.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments on a class-action lawsuit filed in 2016 that picked up on federal judges’ claims that the user fees from the so-called PACER system were being used to broadly subsidize the courts’ information technology budget, rather than being used solely to cover costs related to making court records available online.
At issue is about $145 million in fees that users pay each year to search for and download federal court filings. The courts typically charge 10 cents a page for electronic copies of those filings. It’s a meager amount, but the bills can add up to hundreds or thousands of dollars a month for law firms, electronic publishers, news organizations and nonprofit groups that use the records for a wide variety of purposes.
Two of the judges, Raymond Clevenger and Todd Hughes, sounded inclined to allow the lawsuit to continue over the objections of the Justice Department, which argued for dismissal of the case.
A Justice Department attorney, Alisa Klein, told the judges that Congress’ directions about what costs could be recovered through user fees were too vague to be the basis for a suit. She also said the alleged overcharges were impossible to calculate because surpluses in the accounts were carried from year to year, with the courts requesting appropriations to make up for shortfalls.
“That’s unknowable,” she said.
Clevenger asked, incredulously, whether the Justice Department was contending that PACER users couldn’t get refunds even if the courts incurred “knowingly, blatantly illegal” expenses on the accounts, like new curtains for the Supreme Court or “gold-plated toilets” for judges. He also raised the possibility that, under the government’s broad interpretation of the law, courts could use the PACER funds to publicize the menu in the Supreme Court cafeteria.
Klein initially resisted those hypotheticals, prompting a barbed response from the judge: “Do you have a lot of trouble answering questions in life or just when you come to the court?”
A New York judge has struck down a law that would have created a state commission tasked with investigating prosecutorial misconduct.
Justice David Weinstein declared the law unconstitutional in a decision issued Tuesday, marking a win for a prosecutors’ association that sued over the statute.
The law would have set up an 11-member commission to probe misconduct claims against New York state prosecutors. The panel would have been appointed by the governor, Legislature and New York’s chief judge.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, first signed the law in 2018 and later approved amendments after constitutionality concerns were raised.
Supporters say the law would set up a new way of stopping prosecutors who abuse their power. Cuomo’s office has touted the commission as the nation’s first and said prosecutorial misconduct can lead to wrongful convictions.
The law would have allowed the commission to censure or admonish a prosecutor. It also gave the panel the ability to recommend to the governor that a prosecutor be removed,
Prosecutors have called the law unconstitutional.
In their lawsuit, the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York argued the measure violated the separation of powers and gave state lawmakers too much oversight over independent district attorney’s offices.
.@PatrickMahomes is going to Disney World. And he's bringing everybody. #ChiefsKingdom #SBLIV pic.twitter.com/D4VgzQw9Yx— NFL (@NFL) February 3, 2020
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned a proposed ethics rule that would discourage federal judges from belonging to the conservative Federalist Society and its liberal counterpart, the American Constitution Society.
Justice Thomas has long participated in events sponsored by the Federalist Society, which has groomed many of President Trump’s judicial nominees.
“And now I think they’re about to silence the Federalist Society. So I guess I can’t come back,” Justice Thomas quipped Friday at Federalist Society convention at Walt Disney World.
“Some of us are fighting back,” responded U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, a former Thomas law clerk who interviewed his former boss before the audience.
The ethics proposal, circulated last month by the federal judiciary’s policy-making body, the Judicial Conference of the U.S., would tighten existing guidance that lets judges belong to the two groups but not take leadership roles.
A lawyer for one of the corrections officers accused of falsifying records the night Jeffrey Epstein died got into a shouting match Thursday with a Manhattan federal judge — because she set a trial date that landed right in the middle of a trip to Italy.
Tova Noel’s lawyer Jason Foy objected when Judge Analisa Torres scheduled trial for his client and Michael Thomas to begin June 22, saying his daughter would be in Italy and his family was planning to join her, but hadn’t actually booked anything yet.
“Counsel, use Skype,” Torres told him curtly after Foy expressed displeasure at the trial date.
“No, no, no,” he responded, his voice rising. “I will not use Skype.”
The back-and-forth escalated, with Torres repeatedly telling Foy to “sit down” while he argued over her, saying “this is not just about vacation.”
A mom was saving up money for her daughter’s 15th birthday, planning an unforgettable coming-of-age celebration. Imagine the mother’s surprise when federal agents raided her home and seized the $15,000 in cash she was planning to use to pay for the party.
Miladis Salgado is a 54-year-old Colombian immigrant who splits her time working at an airport duty-free store and Subway sandwich shop. It was heartbreaking to lose the funds: “That was money I’d saved for my daughter’s quinceanera,” she said.
The agents raided Salgado’s suburban West Kendall home in May 2015 because they were acting on a bogus tip from a confidential narcotics informant, according to court records. But the lead agent on the case would later admit the cash was clean, federal records show.
Still, it took almost two years and a legal battle for the government to give Salgado back her cash, and according to her court filings, federal authorities refused to pay her attorney’s fees, which means she’s still out $5,000.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in and decide if the government has a responsibility to repay Salgado for all her costs. The Supreme Court has yet to agree to hear the case, but the court has taken the step of asking the U.S. Solicitor General to prepare a response, which, according to Salgado’s attorney Justin Pearson, is a good sign that the court may hear Salgado out.
