Spy Game or National Origin Discrimination?

By John R. Byrne

Last July, Florida passed a law restricting certain "foreign principals" from six countries of concern (including Venezuela and Cuba) from owning property in the state. The most significant restrictions are directed at those domiciled in China who don't hold either US Citizenship or permanent residency. Sponsors of the law assert that Chinese nationals have been buying up property in the United States, posing risks to national security, including concerns about spying. Now plaintiffs are filing lawsuits in federal court challenging the law on the basis that it discriminates on the basis of national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Florida Constitution. One of the cases landed in front of Judge Gayles. Complaint is below. And the New York Times covers the law--and the recent lawsuits--here. 

In other news, the Trump criminal trial down here has been pushed pending resolution on how to address classified documents at trial. ABC News covers it here.

Complaint by John Byrne on Scribd

13 federal judges, including Judge Branch, refuse to hire clerks for anyone attending Columbia undergrad or law school

Wow, how strange.  They aren't refusing to hire students who disrupted class or who signed the silly letter saying to cancel class.  They are refusing to hire all students from Columbia.  

This takes the question in the prior post to a whole new level! And it doesn't make much sense -- they won't hire a Jewish student who was victimized by the protests? And why limit it to Columbia? 

NEW: 13 federal judges say they will no longer hire clerks from Columbia Law School OR Columbia College after the university allowed an encampment on its lawn to spiral into a destructive occupation of a campus building.

This is the first clerkship boycott to hit undergrads.🧵 pic.twitter.com/Ex3GlqBUtK

— Aaron Sibarium (@aaronsibarium) May 6, 2024

Columbia law students want exams canceled

 Here's their statement saying they are too shaken up after the events this week to sit for exams. They are rightfully getting crushed online for the ask. 

Would you hire them? 

New episode -- For the Defense with Judge Kevin Newsom

I am very excited to share this bonus episode with you -- an interview with my law school classmate, Judge Kevin Newsom. I think you'll really enjoy hearing from Judge Newsom, who is both whip-smart and completely engaging. You'll recall we've had other 11th Circuit judges on the show before, including Chief Judge Pryor, Judge Rosenbaum, and Judge Abudu, as well as District Court Judges Charles Breyer, Jed Rakoff, and former Judge John Gleeson. I went into these interviews of our federal appellate judges thinking they might be hard to approach and difficult to connect with. But Judge Newsom is another example of a wonderful person who is extremely down to earth.


You can access it on Apple, Spotify, or any other platform from our website here. I hope you enjoy the episode with the terrific Judge Kevin Newsom.

Thank you! --David

Hosted by David Oscar Markus and produced by rakontur

"The notion that '[n]o man is above the law and no man is below it' is fundamental to our democratic republic’s continuing viability."

 That's not a judge or Justice in one of the Trump cases.  It's how Judge Rosenbaum started her opinion in U.S. v. Victor Hill, but I suspect she was thinking about the immunity case before SCOTUS last week.

In any event, the rest of the intro:

That principle applies equally to sheriffs (and other officers of the law) and detainees. And 18 U.S.C. § 242 vindicates that principle. It imposes criminal liability on anyone who, under color of law, willfully deprives another person of their constitutional rights. Under § 242, a jury convicted Victor Hill, the former Sheriff of Clayton County, Georgia, of using his position as the Sheriff to deprive detainees in his custody of their constitutional rights. Hill now appeals.

Hill oversaw the Clayton County Jail. At that jail, officers used restraint chairs for “safe containment” of pretrial detainees “exhibiting violent or uncontrollable behavior.” But six times, Hill ordered individual detainees who were neither violent nor uncontrollable into a restraint chair for at least four hours, with their hands cuffed behind their backs (or, in one instance, to the sides of the chair) and without bathroom breaks. Each detainee suffered injuries, such as “open and bleeding” wounds, lasting scars, or nerve damage. Based on these events, a jury convicted Hill of six counts of willfully depriving the detainees of their constitutional right to be free from excessive force, in violation of § 242.

Hill challenges that conviction on three grounds. We reject each one. First, Hill had fair warning that his conduct was unconstitutional—that is, that he could not use gratuitous force against a compliant, nonresistant detainee. Second, sufficient evidence sup-ported the jury’s conclusion that Hill’s conduct had no legitimate nonpunitive purpose, was willful, and caused the detainees’ inju-ries. Third, the district court did not coerce the jury verdict but properly exercised its discretion in investigating and responding to alleged juror misconduct.

So after careful consideration, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm Hill’s conviction.

Will there be a Trump surprise?

Pundits are already predicting how the Trump jury will decide his case. On MSNBC, commentators are saying that it’s hard to imagine anything but a guilty verdict based on how they see the case. On Fox, viewers are told that it’s going to be tough for Trump to walk because New York is so heavily weighted Dem. So how will folks react if Donald Trump is found not guilty? It got me thinking about the biggest "surprise" verdicts in American history.

 

  

 

Who else you got?

Second Chances

By John R. Byrne

Nice article by Jay Weaver in the Herald yesterday about Darryl Richardson, a man who turned his life around after being sentenced to 30 years in prison by Judge Seitz back in 2006. Richardson, whose sentence was shortened to 17 years, was released in 2021 and took advantage of the district's CARE court program. CARE stands for “Court-Assisted Re-Entry court.” The program, created by Judge Seitz and currently being overseen by Judge Williams and Judge Reid, has been operating since 2016. It helps participants, who are on supervised release, re-enter the community, connecting them with resources that help them with financial literacy, employment, and medical resources. 

Richardson recently graduated from Miami Dade College’s Culinary Institute, crediting Care Court for pushing him to succeed. I know a lot of effort goes into the program from the Court, probation, and the US Attorney and Federal Public Defender’s offices. It’s cool to hear about those efforts paying off.

Opening statements in New York v. Donald Trump

If you were giving the opening statement for the prosecution, what would your first line be?

And if you were representing Donald Trump, what would it be?

I imagine that the prosecution will start with something like -- No one is above the law.  Even former Presidents.  Donald Trump illegally interfered with the election by doing X, Y, and Z. 

And the defense will start with something like -- Prosecutions should not be political and that's all this is; President Donald Trump is innocent.  He did not interfere with the election.  He was shaken down by a stripper and he paid her.  There's nothing illegal about that. 

How would you do it?