Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup February 2, 2018
Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send Dan a quick email at DReal@Creighton.edu or a message on Twitter(@Daniel_L_Real).
Supreme Court Opinions and News:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg skipped President Trump’s State of the Union address, but people should not read too much into her absence. While Justice Ginsburg has been vocal about her opinions of President Trump, her absence at the State of the Union address was because of a scheduling conflict. Besides, a justice’s absence is not unusual and does not necessarily reflect the justice’s political views. Richard Wolf at USA Today explains it all in this article.
Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News:
Since Gideon v. Wainwright, the right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of court-appointed counsel has been a fundamental right essential to a fair trial. According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, the right to a court-appointed attorney does not extend to immigration proceedings for accompanied minors. The Court’s ruling is “narrow in scope” and “ does not hold, or even discuss, whether the Due Process Clause mandates counsel for unaccompanied minors. That is a different question that could lead to a different answer.” While the Court expressed sympathy for the accompanied minor’s situation, the Court found that the law did not allow it to grant the minor the requested relief. Click HERE to read the Court’s opinion. Dan Levine for Reuters has this report.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put a damper on President Trump’s effort to easy consumer protection regulations when it upheld the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s structure. The Court held that “CFPB’s authority is not of such character that removal protection of its Director necessarily interferes with the President’s Article II duty or prerogative. “ The Court’s ruling can be found HERE. Bloomberg has this report.
In a 56-42 vote, the Senate confirmed Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The confirmation of Stras was not without controversy, however. Stras was the first judicial nominee in 30 years to be confirmed without “blue slips” from both of his state’s Senators. In this report, Kevin Freking at Associated Press explains the history of the “blue slip” and how it has been used.
State Court News:
The California Third District Court of Appeals showed that it is hip to the lingo the kids are using these days. Tinder, a popular dating app that allows users to “swipe right” for people they like and “swipe left” for people they don’t, was sued for age discrimination because it charged people in their 20s $9.99 for the app’s premium service, but charged people 30 or older $19.99. In reversing the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, Judge Currey wrote, “Because nothing in the complaint suggests there is a strong public policy that justifies the alleged discriminatory pricing, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer. Accordingly, we swipe left, and reverse.” It seems that Judge Currey knows how to throw shade. The Court’s full opinion can be found HERE.
Circuit Court Judge Rosemarie Aquilina has skyrocketed to fame for comments she made when sentencing Larry Nassar, the former gymnastics doctor convicted of multiple sexual assaults, to 40-175 years in prison. Some people have praised Judge Aquilina for her comments, while some People believe her comments exceeded the bounds of proper judicial conduct. Now, it is being reported that Judge Aquilina may be considering a run for Michigan’s Supreme Court. Although Judge Aquilina has not decided if she will run for Michigan’s highest court, some people think her handling of the Nassar case makes her an ideal candidate. Jonathan Oosting has this report.
The Illinois Supreme Court has found that it is unconstitutional to prohibit an individual from carrying or possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a public park. The Court held that the law could create a “chilling effect” on the Second Amendment right to bear arms because “[i]nnocent behavior could swiftly be transformed into culpable conduct if an individual unknowingly crosses into a firearm restriction zone.” The Court was not persuaded by the State’s arguments because the State did not present any “specific data or other meaningful evidence” establishing a direct correlation showing that a 1000-foot firearm ban around a public park protects children. Click HERE for the Court’s opinion. The Chicago Tribune has this report.