Monday, August 15, 2011

Back to work

Thanks to Rick for his excellent blogging, as usual.


A few items to start the week:

1. Enjoy the last week before school starts on the 22nd. Then back to parking-lot traffic. Ugh. (btw, shouldn't school start after Labor Day?)



2. In case you didn't see it, the Eleventh Circuit held 2-1 that President Obama's healthcare legislation was unconstitutional. Judges Dubina and Hull wrote a "joint opinion" and Judge Marcus dissented. Let's see what the Supremes do.



3. Florida state judges are saying (via Miami Herald) that they aren't bound by a federal judge's decision that the Florida drug statute is unconstitutional. I'm hearing that the same thing is occurring with Judge Martinez's order on the Florida death penalty -- state judges are saying that they aren't bound by the decision. But aren't they under the Supremacy Clause? Isn't this what federal habaes is all about? If state judges can just respond -- well, that's nice, but we'll decide what our state law says -- then why have habeas at all?



8 comments:

Anonymous said...

technically they are right. a distict court opinion is not binding precedent, either for any other district court or a state trial court. state courts are bound by the constitution, of course, under the supremacy clause, but Judge Martinez's interpretation of the constitution is not dispositive. If the Eleventh affirms, that will be another story.

Anonymous said...

Uh, habeas impacts the defendant at issue. A district court's decision does not bind every state court judge on the issue.

Anonymous said...

You guys are mistaken. The judge -- a federal judge (Scriven, J.) -- ruled that the law was unconstitutional on its face. That's binding on state courts because of the supremacy clause (think about it for a second, 10:18: assuming that the Eleventh Circuit affirms the district judge, how would anything change with regard to the state courts?). True, the district judge's ruling wouldn't bind other district judges, but that only affects the poor chaps seeking habeas relief before those district judges.

Anonymous said...

12:10 - can you cite a case?

Anonymous said...

Do you guys not have Westlaw?

Arizonans for Official Eng. v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 58 n. 11, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 1064 n. 11, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (noting that the “Supremacy Clause does not require state courts to follow rulings by federal courts of appeals on questions of federal law.” (citing Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76, 113 S.Ct. 838, 845-46, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring)); Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1302 n. 6 (11th Cir.2003)).

Doh!

Anonymous said...

12:10 here. Whenever a federal judge rules that a state law is unconstitutional on its face, that means that the law is unconstitutional under any set of facts or circumstances. That is what Judge Scriven did. State-court judges are not simply free to disregard that ruling; they are bound by it under the supremacy clause. See, e.g., any federal-court decision in which a federal court concluded that a state law was facially unconstitutional. Is, say, the state of Texas free to disregard the Supreme Court's ruling that its sodomy law was unconstitional? Of course not. Or how about Judge Walker's decision in California that Proposition 8 is unconstitional on its face. The state of California can't simply ignore that ruling (that's why standing is such a big issue in the appeal; if no one has standing to appeal, then Judge Walker's ruling stands; don't believe me? Check out Judge Reinhardt's concurrence in the opinion certifying certain questions to the California Supreme Court).

Anonymous said...

3:12 -- and that relates to the relevant question how?

Anonymous said...

12:10 here: conceding error on further view.