It’s only too hard for you.

Even though I actually went downtown today and even had lunch at La Loggia, I didn’t come across anything weird or strange. So, chew on this:

The Supreme Court decided today by a 5-4 vote that José Padilla’s lawyer could and should have advised him regarding the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. This José Padilla was not born in the United States. He pled guilty to a drug crime but claimed his lawyer told him that the plea would not affect his permanent residency. (Ha!) Justice Stevens lets you know how this is going to turn out in his opening lines:

Petitioner Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than 40 years. Padilla served this Nation with honor as a member of the U. S. Armed Forces during the Vietnam War.

OK, got it, he wins. (J.P.S., by the way, served in the Pacific from the time he was 22 to the time he was 25. It freaks out the law students when I tell them, “When Stevens was your age, he was fighting the Japanese.” I think they have trouble comprehending that anyone who fought in WWII is still alive, much less holding down a job, much less writing opinions.)

Skipping ahead, we find that four Justices of the Supreme Court do not believe that a defendant’s counsel should try to explain the immigration consequences of pleading guilty because it’s too hard. Alito and Roberts say in their concurrence that defense lawyers would be better off saying nothing more than that adverse immigration consequences may result: “Because many criminal defense attorneys have little understanding of immigration law, it should follow that a criminal defense attorney who refrains from providing immigration advice does not violate prevailing professional norms.” And Scalia and Thomas go even further and say that anything other than the sentence is beside the point:

In the best of all possible worlds, criminal defendants contemplating a guilty plea ought to be advised of all serious collateral consequences of conviction, and surely ought not to be misadvised. The Constitution, however, is not an all-purpose tool for judicial construction of a perfect world ... .

How this was not 9-0 entirely escapes me. How is banishment not a criminal penalty? Wasn’t exile to Siberia a favored punishment of the czars or am I misremembering something? Is this supposedly not punishment because it’s specified in Title 8 rather than Title 18? The more offensive part of this is that the Justices never disclaim expertise over any corner of the law comprised by their vast general jurisdiction. They have no trouble grasping the finer points of criminal law and immigration law as well as patent law, military law, antitrust, bankruptcy, labor, tax, admiralty, whatever. But that’s Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas—not you.

How the ball bounces

Judge Marra just dealt a blow to the successor to the investors in the failed restaurant and memorabilia emporium, D. Wade’s Place, something I had no idea had ever existed. It seems, according to the order dismissing the complaint, that there is no legal basis for their contention that Dwyane (that’s how that’s apparently spelled) was monopolizing memorabilia by failing to perform on a contract that gave the investors

the right to use his name, fame, nickname, initials, autograph, voice, video or film portrayals, facsimile or original signature, photograph, likeness, and image or facsimile image without Wade’s consent to create personalized memorabilia featuring Wade which could be sold at the restaurants.

I know, I know. You’ve just experienced a certain loss of innocence. Basketball’s all just about making money. Let’s move on.

Plaintiff alleges that the relevant product market in this case is Dwyane Wade personalized sports memorabilia. Plaintiff contends that “[t]here is no substitute for Wade-personalized sports memorabilia (‘Wade Memorabilia’), especially in southern Florida, where the Miami Heat plays."

Quoting heavily from a series of antitrust decisions, Judge Marra observed, and I’m paraphrasing here, that things that are cool—e.g., a Yale education, the make-up from Cats, tickets to Phantom, Pepsi, NBC Must See TV—do not constitute their own relevant markets just because they’re cool.

Bilzen Sumberg &c. and the Tampa outpost of DLA Piper filed the motion.

(Having come to the end of this post, I have to confess that I’m a little surprised D.O.M. doesn’t have Blog tags for the Heat or Wade.)

It’s quiet ... too quiet

I didn’t mention this when D.O.M. called and said he needed to focus on work for a while, but I have no idea what’s going on in the SDFla. Judge Jordan dropped by my JV-FPD class last week to explain what goes on behind the curtain at the Eleventh Circuit—which went so well I could have sold tickets. But other than that I’ve pretty much been buried by work without contact with the outside world. Skimming over the Blog, it seems like all I missed was that Justice O’Connor came to town to cut the ribbon on the new courthouse cafeteria. Or something. Anyway, as far as I can tell, there’s nothing going on. The DBR’s web site reports that the deal between UBS and the U.S. may be unraveling. Whatever. That impasse was in the news the last time I was pinch-hitting in this space. Look, people, the whole reason why this district merits its own blog is that weird and bizarre stuff happens here. If you’re all just going to behave normally, then what’s the point?

Spring Break Guest Blogger (WITH AN UPDATE RE MAGISTRATE POSITION)

I'm taking Spring Break off from blogging. You'll be happy to know that Professor Rick Bascuas has agreed to step in for the week. Rick can usually be found blogging over here. See you guys soon.

UPDATED -- Well, just before I got off the grid, I got a tip that the new magistrate position went to Jonathan Goodman. I have no idea whether this is correct or not as I have not been able to confirm it. But since I'm not a real journalist, I figured I would post it. If it is JG, I congratulate him and believe he will be great! If I'm wrong, please let me know so I can fix this...

So who is the new Magistrate?

The judges interviewed and then picked the new magistrate today. But the choice isn't public yet. When asked who was selected, Chief Judge Moreno said this:

"The most qualified applicant was chosen pending an FBI investigation. Consistent with the rules of the Judicial Conference it remains confidential until finalized."

But once the FBI calls start, it will be all over town.... If you all hear anything, send me an email and I will keep it confidential. Thanks!

Previous coverage here.