The Supreme Court kicked off a new term on Monday by rejecting hundreds of appeals that built up over the summer recess. Because of the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah, which commemorates the Jewish New Year, the justices did not hear any arguments on Monday. Three of the eight justices are Jewish. Arguments are scheduled to begin on Tuesday. Here are five cases that will not be heard by the high court this coming term.

Death Row Appeal

From 2009 to 2013, death row inmates in North Carolina were allowed to review sentencing statistics to prove their sentencing was tainted by racial bias under the Racial Justice Act. Four inmates–three African-Americans and one Native American–had their death sentences reduced to life in prison with no parole because of the newly enacted law. But North Carolina’s Supreme Court vacated the reduced sentences last December, after the Racial Justice Act was annulled in 2013, meaning the inmates’ death sentences could be reinstated.

The inmates sought to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected their appeal on Monday. Their cases will be retried at the state level. North Carolina has not performed an execution in 10 years.

Obama Immigration Appeal

In late 2014, President Obama announced a proposal to shield illegal immigrants who met certain residency requirements and stopped children who were U.S. citizens from being deported. Twenty-six states sued, claiming Obama was overstepping his authority, and the Supreme Court, operating as an eight person bench due to Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February, ruled in a 4-4 decision against the administration.

On Monday, the high court weighed an appeal from the Obama administration to reconsider his proposal when a ninth member joins the bench. They rejected the appeal.

Taser Gun Appeal

In 2011, police officers in North Carolina shot a man five times with a taser gun. The man, Ronald Armstrong, was mentally ill and refused to be taken to a mental hospital. He later died from the taser wounds.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the police used excessive force, and established new restrictions on police officers’ ability to use a taser gun on people resisting arrest. The U.S. Supreme will not rehear the case this term, they said on Monday, leaving in place the taser guidelines established by the lower court.

John Deere Appeal

Prior to 2013, New Hampshire’s Automobile Dealer Bill of Rights law barred automobile manufacturers from ending dealer contracts without just cause. Then, in 2013, New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan expanded the law to include farm equipment manufacturers. Led by John Deere, the newly expanded law was challenged in the state’s Supreme Court, which upheld the law.

The farm equipment firms appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which let the state court ruling stand by rejecting the appeal.

“Whitey” Bulger Appeal

James “Whitey” Bulger, the infamous Boston gangster, was arrested in 2011 after 17 years on the lam. Two years later, he was convicted of racketeering crimes, and of playing a role in at least 11 murders. Bulger, 87, appealed his 2013 conviction, arguing that a now-dead federal prosecutor promised him immunity.

His appeal to the Supreme Court was officially shut down on Monday, and he is now essentially guaranteed to spend the remainder of his life behind bars.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Kicks Off New Term with Hundreds of Rejected Appeals appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Platini, former UEFA president, and Sepp Blatter, former FIFA president, were denied appeals on their ban from all football activities this week. However, the FIFA appeals committee did decide to reduce the ban from eight years to six, based on the duo’s “service to the game.” Both Platini and Blatter claim they are innocent and plan to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to lift their ban, but with the election of Gianni Infantino as President of FIFA, it appears that the soccer world is moving on without them.

Infantino was previously an adviser to Platini, but when seven of FIFA’s highest ranking officials were arrested five months ago, he transitioned from UEFA secretary general to the race for the FIFA presidency–a far more contentious position. Infantino’s primary competitor was Sheikh Salman, who ran on a platform of transforming FIFA from a Euro-centric governing body to a truly international organization that would recognize the interests of soccer around the world. Despite this noble ideal of creating a more equitable soccer world, Sheik Salman did not build the solid constituency that Infantino managed to construct.  This could be attributed to Sheik Salman’s allegedly checkered past when it comes to human rights–he was connected with the jailing and torture of Bahraini athletes who peacefully protested against his family during the Arab Spring.

Infantino has multiple issues to tackle during his first several weeks in office. The most immediate concern regards Russia and Qatar’s respective bids for hosting World Cups. The circumstances by which those countries secured the bids are under investigation by Swiss law enforcement, but the chance of FIFA reneging on the bids is relatively slim. Construction has already begun on stadiums and tourist attractions in Qatar, and although the working conditions on these construction sites have caused outrage among human rights activists, there is no sign of development slowing down.

A troubling prospect for the 2022 Qatar World Cup is that Platini and Blatter might be able to return to football just in time to participate in the tournament. The shortening of their sentences leaves the door open for them to participate, either within FIFA or through smaller organizations that will be working on logistical issues in Qatar. Argentina’s legendary Diego Maradona recently stated that he feels Platini and Blatter should receive life in prison for their abuse of power, and while that seems like an extreme reaction, it is clear to many that their current sentence is not a sufficient punishment for their crime.

Missing the 2018 Russia World Cup may be a blow to the egos of Platini and Blatter but if the two men are allowed to participate in the Qatari World Cup, they could be able to step back into their old habits without missing a beat. By 2022, Infantino may enact broad reforms of FIFA activity during his tenure but the return of Platini and Blatter would automatically undermine any of those actions. If the Court of Arbitration for Sport moves to completely overturn the ban on football related activities that was upheld this week, then FIFA may never escape its reputation for corruption.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post FIFA 2016: Can Sepp Blatter and Michael Platini Get Back to Soccer’s Inner Circle? appeared first on Law Street.

The podcast “Serial” took the world by storm this fall. Never had a podcast been so talked about, so obsessed over, or raised such fascinating questions about a 15-year-old murder conviction. The case involved a young man named Adnan Syed who was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend. Although he was convicted a decade and a half ago, Syed’s case will now be heard again in court.

For those of you who missed “Serial,” here are the CliffNotes. Don’t worry, I’ll stay away from too many spoilers. Essentially, in 1999, a Baltimore high school senior named Hae Min Lee went missing and was later found dead. After a police investigation, Syed, her ex-boyfriend who was also a high school senior, was found guilty of her murder.

Fast forward almost 15 years to present day. Journalist Sarah Koenig was approached by Syed’s friends with concerns about the way his case was handled, and all the inconsistencies in the evidence that was brought up in court. Koenig was intrigued, and started looking into the case. She ended up producing a podcast–a journalistic enterprise–exploring the facts of the case.

A Maryland court just ruled that it will hear arguments on Syed’s case, mostly based on the fact that his lawyer, Christina Guttierez, may not have done her job effectively. Syed and his lawyers are arguing that Guttierez didn’t follow up with a possible alibi witness whom Koenig spoke to in the “Serial” podcast. They also argue that Guttierez failed Syed by not exploring the possibility of a plea deal when she was given the option. Given that Guttierez has since died of a heart attack, it’s unclear why she made those choices. They could have been incompetence, like Syed’s attorneys are arguing, or they could have been a strategic move.

After a few different attempts at an appeal failed since Syed was convicted, this most recent appeal was brought to the Maryland Special Court of Appeals. It’s important to note that Syed hasn’t actually been granted an appeal–this is just a small step toward that. Basically, the Maryland Special Court of Appeals has agreed to listen to what Syed and the state have to say, and then decide whether or not to order a new trial, or send it back to the Circuit Court.

Koenig posted about the development on the “Serial” website, saying:

In Episode 10 of the podcast, I reported that this appeal was alive by a thread. Now, I’d say it’s more of a … well-made string, maybe. Like the nylon kind. Because it means that the Court of Special Appeals judges think the issues Adnan raised in his brief are worth considering. That’s a pretty big hurdle for any appellant to clear.

Whether or not Syed will actually end up getting a new trial is very uncertain at this point. That being said, it’s a case that touched a lot of people, or at the very least opened the doors to some unsettling realities of our justice system. I’m sure all “Serial” fans will be anxiously awaiting the next news in this saga.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Subject of Serial Podcast Gets Appeal Opportunity appeared first on Law Street.

The nation’s capital is not having a good summer.

Just weeks after Congress tried to overturn a few of D.C.’s laws, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled that the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public is unconstitutional.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because this is the second time that a court has overturned a D.C. gun law in the past six years. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the district’s 32-year-old ban on private handgun ownership was unconstitutional in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. This was the first time that the Supreme Court had ever stated that the Second Amendment guaranteed gun ownership for every American. For D.C., it meant the city had to rewrite their gun laws.

These new laws allowed residents to keep registered handguns in their home and required gun owners to obtain a permit before carrying in public. However, the city had a policy of refusing to issue any of these permits. This amounted to a de facto ban on handguns in public. Authors of the law argued that D.C.’s status as the nation’s capital gave it reason enough to ban handguns, since they would put the many federal buildings, government officials, and memorials at risk. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier put it this way at a hearing in January:

The District of Columbia, as the seat of the Federal government, with its multitude of critical official and symbolic buildings, monuments, and events, and high-profile public officials traversing the streets every day, is a city filled with ‘sensitive’ places. Our laws should reflect that reality.

This reasoning did not fly with Senior District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. Heller and a similar ruling in Chicago gave Scullin enough precedent to strike down the ban. Chicago attempted to ban the sale of firearms within city limits. U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang found this law to be unconstitutional. Chang was not convinced that banning the sale of firearms would reduce gun violence.

What’s next?

D.C. will appeal this ruling, and they have reason to be confident. In 2012, a U.S. District Court struck down a Maryland law which only issued carry permits to individuals who could provide a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a firearm outside of the home. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this ruling one year later. This provides an important precedent for proponents of the D.C. ban. There are reasonable restrictions that can be placed on an American’s right to carry a firearm in public. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said as much in his majority opinion in Heller:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

While the court ruled in 2008 that citizens are allowed to own firearms, it added that restrictions on such ownership were not unconstitutional. Specifically, Scalia’s majority opinion argued that “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places” can be forbidden. It might be a stretch to claim that the entire District of Columbia is a “sensitive place,” but at least D.C. has a leg to stand on.

In the meantime, how will this ruling impact D.C. residents?

The D.C. Attorney General has requested a stay, but one has not yet been granted. This means that, for now, it is legal to carry a handgun in the nation’s capital. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier has instructed officers to not arrest anyone holding a registered handgun. Those visiting D.C. who have a carry permit from another state will also be allowed to carry their handgun.

As frustrating and frightening as it is to see a judge allow any Joe Schmo to carry a gun in a city that is home to so many important people and high-profile targets, the city should have seen this coming, especially in the wake of Heller. To respond to a court’s rejection of your strict gun ban with another strict gun ban is foolish, and claiming that an entire city is a “sensitive place” is laughable. Yes, many parts of D.C. are home to federal buildings, but there are large areas of D.C. that look like any other city. There are shopping centers, grocery stores, apartment complexes, and everything else that makes a city a city. There are also threats to the safety of the average citizen, and D.C. residents have the constitutional right to defend themselves from those threats with a gun.

For the safety of D.C. residents, Mayor Vincent Gray and the city council need to approve new and sensible gun laws that balance the need to protect our government officials with the right of all D.C. residents to defend themselves. Banning or allowing guns everywhere in the city are not viable options.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Robert Nelson via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post D.C. Gun Laws Ruled Unconstitutional, Again appeared first on Law Street.

The 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition of habeas corpus last Wednesday to Oklahoma death row inmate, Benjamin Cole—saying that the circumstances of his trial were fair and perfectly constitutional.

48-year-old Cole was convicted of first-degree murder after a 2002 incident in which he inflicted a fatal injury to his infant daughter while trying to get her to stop crying. Nine-month-old Brianna was lying on her stomach when her father lifted her ankles up over her head—a move so unnatural it broke her spine in half and shredded her aorta, according to the subsequent autopsy report. As she lay dead on the floor, Cole returned to his video games until his wife walked into the room.

During the 2003-04 trial, Cole denounced his government-appointed defense counsel for not sharing his conviction in the Christian faith. Court documents described him as staring blankly at the Bible while the proceedings took place. Cole then made a request for a new team of Pentecostal lawyers to represent him, but the request was denied. That denial formed the bulk of his recent habeas corpus petition where he claims that it violated his 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights.

In his petition, Cole argued that the Supreme Court case, U.S v. Cronic, set precedent for what he called a “breakdown of communication” between him and his lawyers. In the Cronic case, the defendant accused of mail-fraud was sentenced to 25 years in prison after his newly assigned lawyer failed to present a defense equal to that of the prosecution’s 4-year preparation. But in the case of Benjamin Cole, both the presiding district court, and most recently, the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals have decided that Cole’s born-again trial behavior was of his own doing and, as a result, didn’t incur the same constitutional blunder as U.S v. Cronic.

The final opinion reads, “Having reviewed all of the state court records in this case, we conclude that, notwithstanding the constitutional errors alleged by Cole in these federal habeas proceedings, Cole received a fundamentally fair trial. In other words, even aggregating the constitutional errors alleged by Cole, we conclude that those errors did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on either the jury’s determination of Cole’s guilt or its decision to sentence Cole to death.”

There are 32 states that still use the death penalty.  According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the number of inmates on death row in 1970 versus today has gone from 631 to 3,108. Cole’s more-than-decade-long saga of appeals is a familiar tale in the United States, whereupon sentencing, death row inmates wait an average of nearly 200 months before execution. Even the Supreme Court has characterized these long periods of time waiting to be killed as causing “immense mental anxiety amounting to a great increase in the offender’s punishment (Foster v. Florida, 2002).”

In an exhaustive cycle of ineffective legal assistance petitions to prosecutorial misconduct claims, the state wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs when a sentence of death is handed down. While Cole’s actions were horrific and unspeakable to the moral human being, by sentencing him to death, the court sentenced the taxpayers to the gallows of a slow and painful financial burden. So, if not for reasons humane or anti-hypocritical (like, you know, not murdering murderers,) then in the Cole case one can find a monetary incentive in avoiding the death penalty.

[Tenth Circuit Blog]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Theodore Scott via Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Petition Denied to Death Row Inmate Convicted of Killing Daughter appeared first on Law Street.

The Detroit bankruptcy filing will arrive in court Wednesday despite several attempts to block the massive $18 billion debt restructuring.  U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Steven Rhodes agreed to an expedited hearing shortly after Emergency Manager Kevin Orr filed for Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy last Friday.  The main opponents of the bankruptcy are retirees and workers who are primarily concerned with their ability to receive retirement benefits.

On Monday Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Rosemarie Aquilina claimed that the law allowing Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to approve the emergency manager’s bankruptcy filing is unconstitutional.  This ruling was based on the grounds that the governor would be violating the state’s constitutional protections for public workers’ retirement benefits.  In response, State Attorney General Bill Schute has filed an appeal on behalf of the governor to the state appeals court.

[NBC News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ian Freimuth via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Detroit Files Largest U.S. Municipal Bankruptcy appeared first on Law Street.