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
The jury loved it and loved him.
He was also a theater guy, performing in lots of shows and on the board of a theater company in Broward. Folks on his FB page on talking more about his theater career and his love of theater than the law, which is how we all know him.
Alvin's brother passed away a few weeks ago... what an awful time for their family. He was married to Lois for almost 50 years. They have 6 children. RIP Alvin.
The WaPo has the story here:
That last quote is interesting...
Meantime, ACB was asked about the Supreme Court's "shadow docket." If you are interested, you should read this entire post from SCOTUSblog. Here's the intro:
Near the end of two meandering days of questions at last week’s Senate hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked a question that probably has never been asked at any other Supreme Court nomination hearing.
“Are you aware of the Supreme Court’s – as it’s called – shadow docket?” he asked.
Barrett, who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, said she was. “The shadow docket has become a hot topic in the last couple of years,” she added.
Barrett is right. In fact, in just the last few months, the court has issued emergency rulings on coronavirus policies, immigration restrictions, capital punishment, access to abortion, the U.S. census and procedures for the upcoming election. All of those rulings have been part of the court’s shadow docket.
The court itself would never use that term. Law professor William Baude coined it in 2015 to refer unofficially to the body of orders issued by the Supreme Court outside the formal opinions in the 70 or so cases in which it hears oral argument each term. Some of those orders are peripheral and procedural. But others resolve, at least temporarily, contentious policy disputes or matters of life and death. And this year, the shadow docket is taking on more significance – and getting more attention – than it ever has before.
Concerns about the shadow docket relate primarily to a special system that allows litigants to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court in the middle of ongoing litigation. Under normal procedures, a case reaches the justices only after full consideration and final decisions by a trial court and an appeals court – a process that usually takes months, if not years. But the shadow docket gives litigants a potential shortcut: When a lower court issues a ruling (even a preliminary ruling that does not decide the full case), the losing side can ask the Supreme Court to order an emergency “stay” of that ruling. A stay, if the justices issue one, freezes the lower court’s ruling, stripping it of force while the litigation proceeds. By preserving the status quo as it existed before the lower court’s ruling, emergency stays can favor litigants who hope to run out the clock.
Traditionally, litigants must satisfy a high legal standard to earn an emergency stay. Among other things, they must show that they would suffer “irreparable harm” if the lower court’s ruling were left in place. That onerous standard is meant to reserve this form of relief for circumstances in which the court’s immediate intervention is needed to prevent extraordinary consequences. Emergency stays, everyone agrees, should not be a way to short-circuit the normal appeals process. But as the number of these requests has grown in recent years (including a flurry of such requests from the Trump administration), Justice Sonia Sotomayor has argued that the court itself has tacitly lowered the bar for litigants to receive emergency stays on the shadow docket.
1. Another debate tonight. This time with a mute button. Fun times.
3. ACB takes next step to confirmation.
4. Wear a mask, even Chris Christie says so.
5. Jury trials are off till April, but we're making grand juries come in starting in mid-November. Instead of 11 GJs, there will be 2. And they will meet two days a week.
6. Transitions is holding its annual fundraiser today, virtually. They are a good group who needs your help.
Another Miami story.
A Coral Gables attorney was called a “serial bank robber” by the FBI, which believes he robbed five banks since Sept. 30 before his Tuesday night arrest.
The agency said Miami resident Aaron Honaker, 41, was headed into a bank when Coral Gables police arrested him. Honaker’s first appearance in Miami federal court is set for Wednesday afternoon.
***
Honaker’s Florida Bar entry says he’s with the firm of Martinez Morales and has no Bar discipline cases in the last 10 years. Court documents say he previously worked at Greenberg Traurig. He joined the Bar in 2008, two years after graduating from Duke University School of Law.
There's been a lot of debate about packing the Supreme Court. Most Americans are against it, and according to a recent poll, 51% of Americans want ACB confirmed. That said, here's an interesting essay from Charles Fried about why Biden should do it if SCOTUS goes too far. It ends this way:
In local news, if you are looking for Chief Judge Moore's Order postponing jury trials until April 2021, here ya go.But before going forth on any enlargement plan, a Biden administration would do well to see if the Supreme Court might not heed the lesson of history. Consider the well-known episode indelibly judged as President Franklin Roosevelt’s “failed” court packing plan. Mr. Roosevelt waited to propose his “Judicial Procedures Reform” legislation until 1937, after his first four years in office during which the reactionary Supreme Court majority relentlessly obstructed desperately needed experiments to combat the Great Depression.
President Roosevelt’s move is viewed as a rare failure by a master politician. But was it? Immediately after his proposal was unveiled, the court ruled 5 to 4 that the Wagner Act, restructuring American labor law and relations, was constitutional, and a spate of pro-New Deal decisions followed. The very threat of court packing and the passage of time made this “nuclear option” unnecessary.
Let’s see whether the current Supreme Court majority overplays its hand. If it does, then Mr. Biden’s nuclear option might not only be necessary but it will be seen to be necessary.
