Skip to content

Posts by Billy Corriher

Apr 26

Death Sentence Overturned Due to Racial Bias

Posted 25 days ago by Billy Corriher

Last week, Marcus Robinson was on death row. Now, he has been given a chance at life. His death sentence was overturned because the judge found that black jurors were systematically excluded in his trial. Judge Gregory Weeks issued an order overturning the sentence under North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act, which gives death row inmates the right to challenge racial discrimination.  Republicans in the state legislature recently tried to repeal the law, only to face a veto from the governor. When it was passed, prosecutors assailed the law as a back door repeal of the death penalty.  After reading Judge Weeks’ order, I think they may be right.

Read more

Apr 19

1 Comment

West Virginia Rolls Out Public Financing for Judges

Posted 32 days ago by Billy Corriher

After Massey Energy Co. spent enormous sums of money to influence elections for the West Virginia Supreme Court, the state created a pilot public financing program to free judicial candidates from outside influence.  Only one candidate (out of eight) in this year’s election has accepted public funding.  Republican Allen Loughry, a longtime clerk at the court, only needed to raise 500 small campaign contributions to receive $350,000 for the general election.  Loughry said the large campaign contributions can be “extremely corrosive.”  ”There is so much money poured into these judiciary elections, there’s a perception that money buys access.”

Read more

Apr 3

Striking Down the ACA Would Be a Judicial Power Grab

Posted 48 days ago by Billy Corriher

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the 2010 health care reform bill known to many as “Obamacare,” are discouraged after last week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court.  The Justices’ questioning of the Solicitor General and his responses to the justices did not bode well for the Government.  The conservatives Justices seemed skeptical that the individual health insurance mandate, the centerpiece of the ACA, is within Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.  The Court has long taken a broad view of Federal authority over interstate commerce, and striking down the ACA would require a wholesale repudiation of those precedents.

A 1942 case forms the foundation of modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence.  In Wickard, the Court upheld Congress’s power to limit the production of wheat for home consumption.  There, the Court discusses the scope of the nation’s problem with wheat production. The Court concluded that the affect of one farmer’s wheat on national demand for wheat may be trivial, but “taken together with that of many others similarly situated, [it] is far from trivial.”  The Court overruled older cases that relied on strict legal formulations of Congress’ authority in favor of a broader analysis.  The Court rejected the farmer’s argument that Congress cannot force farmers to “to buy what they could provide for themselves.”  If a farmer’s decision not to buy wheat can be regulated, why can’t one’s decision not to buy health insurance?  Both of those decisions (not to buy something) could be described as “inactivity,” but the Court still upheld the wheat regulation.

Read more

Mar 27

Trayvon’s Killing Exposes Festering Wounds of Racism

Posted 55 days ago by Billy Corriher

When the lives of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin collided on February 26, neither one could have understood what was happening. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer, and he mistakenly thought this skinny teenager, walking down the street with candy, was some sort of threat.  Martin, on the other hand, had no idea why this stranger was staring at him and following him.  Visiting his father in Sanford, Florida, Martin had grown up in Miami, a diverse city where young black males are not accustomed to suspicion and harassment.  In a few moments, Martin would be lying face down on the ground with a hole in his chest. Read more

Mar 20

Court Sides with SEC and Citigroup Over Settlement

Posted 62 days ago by Billy Corriher

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has resurrected a deal between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Citigroup to settle fraud charges based on the bank’s sale of certain mortgage-backed securities.  District Court Judge Jed Rakoff rejected the settlement deal last fall, ruling that it was contrary to the public interest.  The Second Circuit stayed Rakoff’s order and ruled that the parties are likely to prevail in arguing that the judge exceeded his authority.  The court characterized Rakoff’s position as requiring an admission of liability to approve the settlement, suggesting he would not “approve a settlement that represents a compromise.”  While judges are permitted to disagree with an agency’s decision, the Second Circuit said they need a “substantial reason” to do so.

Rakoff’s battle with the SEC and Citigroup comes amid continuing outrage over banks’ role in the financial crisis and the government’s failure to hold them accountable.  Citigroup faces serious allegations: just before the crisis, the bank realized it owned risky mortgage-backed securities, so it set up investment vehicles for them and lied to purchasers about the risk. Citigroup made a $160 million profit by shorting the investments, while investors lost $700 million.  Rakoff criticized the SEC’s $95 million penalty as “pocket change” and “a very good deal” for Citigroup.  Rakoff previously rejected the SEC’s settlement with Bank of America, only approving it after the penalty went from $33 million to $150 million. Read more

Mar 15

Department of Justice Rejects Texas Voter ID Law

Posted 67 days ago by Billy Corriher

When Texans vote in the upcoming presidential primary, the federal government wants to ensure they won’t be turned away from the polls for lacking the proper identification.  The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday issued a letter rejecting the state’s new voter ID law.  DOJ argued the law would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of minority voters.  The letter said the statute cannot be “pre-cleared” under Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act, because it has the effect of denying minorities the right to vote.

The Texas law requires voters to present a drivers license, a state identification card, or a concealed-weapon permit.  Neither a student ID, federal government employee ID, tribal ID, nor a veterans ID is acceptable. DOJ analyzed data provided by Texas to determine that the law would disproportionately impact Latino voters: “According to the state’s own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification.” Read more

Mar 2

Court seems poised to limit corporate liability for human rights abuses

Posted 80 days ago by Billy Corriher

If the comments at oral argument are any indication, the Supreme Court will soon overrule several lower court rulings that held corporations liable for violations of international law under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a law passed by the first Congress. The ATS granted federal courts jurisdiction to hear lawsuits by foreign persons for torts that violate international law. Read more

Feb 22

4 Comments

Governor petitions high Court, claims political prosecution

Posted 89 days ago by Billy Corriher

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has spent the last decade of his life on trial, in jail or out on bond. He was convicted of obstruction of justice and “honest services” fraud in 2006. The governor recently petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the evidence against him was insufficient. Siegelman says his prosecution was politically motivated, and statistical evidence suggests he may be right. 

The Democratic governor’s conviction was based on accusations that he agreed to seat an executive on a state board in exchange for a $500,000 contribution to a lottery campaign that Siegelman supported. After the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of “honest services” fraud to “bribes and kickbacks,” the Eleventh Circuit upheld Siegelman’s conviction and rejected the argument that bribery requires an express quid pro quo. The Eleventh Circuit conceded that the Supreme Court requires an“explicit” agreement but concluded that “explicit” does not mean “express.” (Webster’s defines “explicit” as “fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity.”) Siegelman complained that the court’s broad definition results in “confusion . . . as to where the line lies between politics and crime.” He warned that political speech could be chilled: “[M]oney is the lifeblood of modern politics, and most . . . officials are responsive in at least some degree to those who contribute [to campaigns].” Read more

Feb 1

Religion seems to be winning recent church v. state battles

Posted 110 days ago by Billy Corriher

Recent weeks have seen some high-profile victories for advocates of freedom of religion. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that civil rights laws do not apply to religious employers.The Supreme Court’s decision involved a “ministerial” teacher at a religious school who was fired after taking leave for an illness and then threatening to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The teacher worked at a Lutheran school and was an ordained minister, which meant she had some duties that “lay” teachers lacked. The Court unanimously held that the First Amendment gives rise to a “ministerial” exception to federal anti-discrimination laws. A Sixth Circuit decision reversed a lower court’s decision to threw out a religious freedom claim by a counseling student who refused to counsel homosexual clients.

Read more

Jan 23

High court rejects Texas judge’s redistricting map

Posted 119 days ago by Billy Corriher

The Supreme Court unanimously threw out a federal judge’s redistricting map for the state of Texas. The Court’s per curiam opinion, released Friday, said the judge failed to show deference to the Texas legislature’s policy judgments in its map, which is still awaiting preclearance from a federal court in D.C. The Court said the judge should have used the legislature’s map as a starting point. The Court noted that redistricting is primarily the responsibility of state legislatures.
The Court noted that, when it comes to redistricting, there is no such thing as “neutral principles.” All of the decisions involved are policy judgments. The Court reiterated that Section 5 presents “serious constitutional questions,” but new voting laws prove that federal oversight is still justified.

Read more

« Older Entries