Criminal Law

Supreme Court Rebukes Appeals Court for Overstepping in Habeas Case

by Samantha Clark
written by Samantha Clark
Supreme Court Rebukes Appeals Court for Overstepping in Habeas Case

Representative image for illustration purposes only

The Supreme Court has reversed a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that the lower court improperly granted habeas relief to Jeremiah Sweeney based on a claim he never actually made. The case, *Terence Clark, Director, Prince George’s County Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney*, centered on Sweeney’s conviction for second-degree murder and the subsequent appeals process.

Background of the Case

Jeremiah Sweeney was convicted in Maryland of second-degree murder and other related charges stemming from a shooting. The prosecution argued that Sweeney fired at neighbors during an argument about stolen marijuana, accidentally killing a bystander. A key point of contention at trial was whether Sweeney could have been the shooter given his location and the angle of the bullet.

During the trial, a juror, Juror 4, took it upon himself to visit the crime scene. After deliberations began, he shared his observations with the other jurors. The court and parties involved agreed to dismiss Juror 4 rather than declare a mistrial, and the remaining 11 jurors ultimately convicted Sweeney. Sweeney’s direct appeal was unsuccessful.

Sweeney’s Post-Conviction Efforts

Sweeney then pursued post-conviction relief in state court, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a voir dire (questioning) of the entire jury to determine if Juror 4’s unauthorized visit had prejudiced any other jurors. The state court denied this claim.

He then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, again arguing ineffective assistance of counsel on the same grounds. The Federal District Court also denied his petition, concluding that the state court’s decision on the ineffective assistance claim was not objectively unreasonable.

The Fourth Circuit’s Intervention

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision. However, the Fourth Circuit didn’t rule on the ineffective assistance claim that Sweeney actually presented. Instead, it concluded that a “combination of extraordinary failures from juror to judge to attorney” deprived Sweeney of his constitutional rights to confront witnesses and have an impartial jury. They ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court, in a *per curiam* (by the court) opinion, strongly disagreed with the Fourth Circuit’s approach. The Court emphasized the principle of “party presentation” in the adversarial legal system, stating that courts should act as neutral arbiters and decide cases based on the issues presented by the parties. Citing *United States v. Sineneng-Smith*, the Court reiterated that courts “call balls and strikes” and don’t get to “bat.”

The Supreme Court found that the Fourth Circuit had violated this principle by granting relief based on a claim Sweeney never asserted. Sweeney’s federal habeas petition focused solely on the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel. The Fourth Circuit, instead of addressing that claim, essentially created a new one based on a broader assessment of alleged failures throughout the trial. The Supreme Court deemed this a “radical transformation” of Sweeney’s claim and an abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case back to the lower court. The Fourth Circuit is now instructed to analyze the ineffective assistance of counsel claim that Sweeney actually presented, and to do so under the stringent standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). AEDPA requires federal courts to defer to state court decisions unless they are “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” The Supreme Court also noted that when assessing a *Strickland* claim (ineffective assistance of counsel) that a state court has already adjudicated, the analysis is “doubly deferential.”

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of sticking to the issues presented by the parties in a legal case and respecting the established framework for federal review of state court decisions.

Case Information

Case Name:
Terence Clark, Director, Prince George’s County Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney

Court:
Supreme Court of the United States

Judge:
Per Curiam

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Constitutional LawCriminal LawFamily Law

Supreme Court Sides with Defendant in Child Abuse Case

by Michael Reynolds, Samantha Clark & Anthony Brooks
written by Michael Reynolds, Samantha Clark & Anthony Brooks
Supreme Court Sides with Defendant in Child Abuse Case

Representative image for illustration purposes only

The Supreme Court has overturned a Mississippi Supreme Court decision, ruling that the lower court erred in allowing a child witness to testify behind a screen without the required case-specific findings. This decision reinforces the importance of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.

The Case’s Background

In May 2020, A.G.C., a young girl, visited her father, Jeffrey Pitts, for a weekend. After returning home, she told her mother that she had been sexually abused. This led to criminal charges against Pitts. During the trial, the prosecution sought to place a screen between A.G.C. and Pitts while she testified. They cited a Mississippi law that allows child witnesses the right to a screen that would allow the judge and jury to see the child but block the child’s view of the defendant.

Pitts objected, arguing that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, which guarantees a defendant the right to face their accusers, should take precedence. He maintained that the prosecution had not demonstrated the necessity for screening in his specific case. The trial judge, however, granted the prosecution’s request, citing the mandatory nature of the state statute. Pitts was subsequently convicted by the jury.

Appeals and Legal Arguments

Pitts appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court’s decision violated his Sixth Amendment rights. He referenced prior Supreme Court cases, *Coy v. Iowa* and *Maryland v. Craig*, which address the limitations on screening child witnesses. These cases require a court to make a case-specific finding of necessity before allowing a child to testify out of the defendant’s direct sight.

The Mississippi Supreme Court ultimately rejected Pitts’s arguments, attempting to distinguish the *Coy* and *Craig* precedents. The court’s reasoning was based on several factors, including a state constitutional provision related to victims’ rights and the fact that the Mississippi statute mandates screening.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court reversed the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision. The Court’s ruling reaffirmed the principles established in *Coy* and *Craig*. The Court emphasized that a trial court cannot simply rely on a state statute to justify screening a child witness. Instead, the court must “hear evidence” and make a “case-specific” finding that screening is necessary to protect the child from trauma that would impair their ability to communicate.

The Supreme Court rejected the Mississippi Supreme Court’s attempts to distinguish the earlier cases. The Court found that arguments based on state constitutional provisions, the mandatory nature of the Mississippi statute, the child’s age, and the lack of dispute over the perpetrator’s identity were insufficient to override Pitts’s Sixth Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the trial court did not make a case-specific finding of necessity. The prosecution relied on the mandatory screening law, and the judge expressed concerns about not following the law. This, the Supreme Court determined, fell short of the requirements set by *Coy* and *Craig*.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the Mississippi Supreme Court’s judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. This means the case is sent back to the lower court for further action. The Supreme Court clarified that the Mississippi Supreme Court can now consider whether the error in the trial was “harmless.” If the error is deemed harmless, it may not warrant a new trial. This is in line with the established legal principle that even constitutional errors do not always require a new trial if the error did not influence the verdict.

Case Information

Case Name:
Jeffrey Clyde Pitts v. Mississippi

Court:
Supreme Court of the United States

Judge:
Per Curiam

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Administrative LawConstitutional LawCriminal LawImmigration Law

Court Denies Expedited Hearing in Cannabis-Related Import Case

by Michael Reynolds, Samantha ClarkAnanya Sharma & Aisha Khan
written by Michael Reynolds, Samantha ClarkAnanya Sharma & Aisha Khan
Court Denies Expedited Hearing in Cannabis-Related Import Case

Representative image for illustration purposes only

The United States Court of International Trade has denied a request from Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. to speed up the legal process in a case concerning the import of cannabis-related products. Judge Gary S. Katzmann issued the order on March 26, 2025, rejecting the company’s motion for an expedited briefing schedule.

The Heart of the Matter

Eteros Technologies, which imports, manufactures, and distributes agricultural machinery, including equipment for the cannabis and hemp industries, is seeking a declaration from the court. The company wants the court to declare that its imports of certain cannabis-related merchandise from Canada do not violate federal laws against narcotics trafficking and the distribution of controlled substances.

The company claims that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has wrongly used these federal prohibitions to prevent two of its Canadian corporate officers from entering the United States. Eteros argues that this has caused significant economic harm, including operational disruptions, financial losses, and damage to its reputation.

Why Expedite? Eteros’s Arguments

Eteros argued that the case deserved expedited treatment because the ongoing absence of its officers from the U.S. was causing a “leadership vacuum” and harming the company’s operations. They cited issues like inventory mismanagement, the need for costly contract services, strained relationships with customers, and difficulties in recruiting employees. They also contended that the situation created uncertainty about the enforcement of customs laws.

The Court’s Reasoning

The court, however, disagreed that the situation warranted an expedited schedule. Judge Katzmann applied the standard for “good cause” established in a previous case, *Ontario Forest Industries Ass’n v. United States*. This standard considers three factors:

* Whether failure to expedite would lead to the case becoming moot or diminish the value of the requested relief.
* Whether failure to expedite would cause extraordinary hardship to the company.
* Whether the public interest in enforcing the law is particularly strong.

The court found that Eteros didn’t meet any of these criteria.

No Imminent Irreparable Harm

Regarding the first point, the court stated that Eteros did not show that a standard briefing schedule would make the case moot or significantly reduce the value of the relief sought. The judge noted that the harms described by Eteros, while potentially significant, were not time-sensitive and wouldn’t become irreparable in the near future.

Not “Extraordinary” Hardship

The court also rejected the claim of extraordinary hardship. Judge Katzmann acknowledged the difficulties faced by Eteros due to the absence of its officers but concluded that these hardships were not “extraordinary” compared to those faced by other companies involved in litigation. The court pointed out that Eteros could continue operating, albeit less efficiently, during the legal process.

Public Interest Argument Insufficient

Finally, the court dismissed Eteros’s argument that expediting the case would serve the public interest by resolving legal uncertainty. The judge noted that any legal interpretation has some impact on the public but that Eteros did not demonstrate why its specific request warranted special treatment.

The Ruling

Ultimately, the court decided that Eteros had not provided sufficient justification for an expedited hearing schedule. The court denied the motion, meaning the case will proceed on a standard timeline.

Case Information

Case Name:
Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States

Court:
United States Court of International Trade

Judge:
Gary S. Katzmann

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Administrative LawInternational Law

Court Remands Ceramic Tile Case, Again, Citing Insufficient Evidence

by Ananya Sharma & Kenji Nakamura
written by Ananya Sharma & Kenji Nakamura
Court Remands Ceramic Tile Case, Again, Citing Insufficient Evidence

Representative image for illustration purposes only

The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) has once again sent a case involving ceramic tile back to the Department of Commerce (Commerce) for reconsideration. This time, the court found that Commerce’s redetermination, which concluded that Elysium Tiles, Inc.’s composite tile fell within the scope of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders, was not supported by substantial evidence. The court’s decision, issued on March 11, 2025, stems from a dispute over whether Elysium’s marble composite tile is subject to these duties.

Background of the Case

The case began in 2022 when Elysium sought a scope inquiry from Commerce, arguing that its composite tile, made with a porcelain base, an epoxy middle layer, and a marble top layer, should not be covered by the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from the People’s Republic of China. Commerce initially disagreed, ruling that the composite tile did fall within the scope of the orders. The CIT previously remanded the case to Commerce on July 18, 2024, due to concerns about the evidence supporting the initial ruling and the lack of a substantive summary of an ex parte meeting held in connection with the proceedings.

The Court’s Reasoning

In its latest decision, the court found that Commerce’s redetermination, issued after the initial remand, also failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its conclusion. The court’s opinion focuses on the interpretation of the scope language of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. These orders define the scope of the duties, outlining the types of products covered. The court found that Commerce did not adequately address the court’s concerns raised in the previous opinion and order.

Key Issues in Dispute

The central issue revolves around whether Elysium’s composite tile fits the definition of “ceramic tile” as described in the scope orders. The court examined several aspects of the scope language:

Decorative Features: The scope order includes “ceramic tile with decorative features.” Commerce argued that the marble top layer of Elysium’s tile is a decorative feature, thus bringing it within the scope. However, the court found that the scope language was not intended to target decoration with ceramic backing. The court noted that the marble layer does not exceed 3.2 cm in thickness, as the scope language states.

Firing: The scope order covers tiles that “are fired so the raw materials are fused to produce a finished good.” Elysium argued that Commerce’s interpretation of this language was too broad, while Commerce argued that a second firing was not necessary to keep the product in scope. The court found this language to be ambiguous in this context.

Minor Processing: The court previously raised concerns about the processing involved in creating the composite tile, particularly whether it constituted “minor processing” as mentioned in the scope order. Commerce initially argued the processing was minor. The court, however, found that the process of creating the composite tile goes beyond minor processing, and therefore, it should not be included in the scope.

The Court’s Decision and Instructions

The CIT concluded that the scope language was not clear enough to definitively determine whether the composite tile was covered by the orders. Because of this, the court has instructed Commerce to consider five additional factors, as outlined in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2)(i), to make its determination. These factors include:

* The physical characteristics of the merchandise
* The expectations of the ultimate purchasers
* The ultimate use of the product
* The channels of trade in which the product is sold
* The manner in which the product is advertised and displayed

The court specified that Commerce should give greater weight to the physical characteristics of the merchandise if there is conflict among these factors.

Next Steps

Commerce now has 90 days to issue a new determination based on the court’s instructions. After that, the parties involved will have opportunities to comment and respond. The case highlights the complexities of interpreting trade regulations and the importance of clear and well-supported evidence in these matters.

Case Information

Case Name:
Elysium Tiles, Inc., and Elysium Tile Florida, Inc. v. United States

Court:
United States Court of International Trade

Judge:
Jane A. Restani

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Administrative LawConstitutional LawProperty Law

Apex vs. Rubin: Supreme Court Weighs Eminent Domain and Property Rights

by Michael Reynolds, Jessica Morgan & Ananya Sharma
written by Michael Reynolds, Jessica Morgan & Ananya Sharma
Apex vs. Rubin: Supreme Court Weighs Eminent Domain and Property Rights

Representative image for illustration purposes only

The North Carolina Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling in the long-running legal battle between the Town of Apex and property owner Beverly Rubin, clarifying the rights of landowners when municipalities use eminent domain for what is later deemed a private purpose. The court’s decision, issued on August 22, 2025, addresses key questions regarding property rights, the availability of injunctive relief, and the proper procedures for resolving disputes over land takings.

The case stems from Apex’s attempt to acquire a sewer easement across Ms. Rubin’s property to benefit a private real estate developer. The court’s ruling reaffirms the fundamental principle that private property can only be taken for public use, with just compensation, as enshrined in the North Carolina Constitution.

The Genesis of the Dispute

In 2010, Ms. Rubin purchased land in a rural Wake County area, near Apex. In 2012, a developer began acquiring land around her property, with plans to build a subdivision called Riley’s Pond. To develop Riley’s Pond, the developer needed sewer service. Ms. Rubin, however, declined to sell the developer an easement across her property for a sewer line.

The developer then persuaded the Town of Apex to use its eminent domain power to acquire a sewer easement across Ms. Rubin’s land. The Town Council approved the taking by a 3-2 vote in March 2015, with the developer agreeing to cover the town’s costs. The town subsequently installed the sewer line in July 2015, using a boring method to avoid surface construction on Ms. Rubin’s property.

Initial Trial Court Ruling and Subsequent Proceedings

Ms. Rubin challenged the taking, arguing it was for a private purpose. In October 2016, the trial court agreed, ruling that Apex’s exercise of eminent domain was invalid because the primary benefit went to the private developer, not the public. The court dismissed the condemnation action.

Apex appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely. This meant the trial court’s ruling, the “Private Purpose Judgment,” became final. The judgment declared Apex’s claim to Ms. Rubin’s property by eminent domain “null and void”.

Even though the judgment was final, the sewer line remained in place. Ms. Rubin then sought to enforce the judgment by asking the court to order Apex to remove the sewer line. Apex, in turn, filed a separate action, claiming it had acquired an easement through “inverse condemnation” due to the installation of the sewer line.

The trial court handled all these motions jointly. The trial court denied Ms. Rubin’s request for the removal of the sewer line, ruling that she should seek compensation through the inverse condemnation action. The court also granted Apex relief from the original judgment, effectively saying it was “moot” because the sewer line was already installed.

The Court of Appeals then addressed the trial court’s orders in two separate opinions (Apex II and Apex III). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting Apex relief from the judgment, but upheld the denial of Ms. Rubin’s motion to force the removal of the sewer line. As for Apex’s inverse condemnation action, the Court of Appeals ruled that most of Apex’s claims were barred by res judicata.

Both parties then appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which consolidated the cases.

The Supreme Court’s Decision: Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s ruling addresses several critical issues:

* Revesting of Title: The court unequivocally held that when a trial court determines an eminent domain taking was for a private purpose, title to the property reverts to the original landowner. In this case, because the taking was deemed for a private purpose, Ms. Rubin retained ownership of her land, free of any easement.
* Inverse Condemnation: The court rejected Apex’s argument that it acquired an easement through inverse condemnation. The court clarified that inverse condemnation is a legal action available when the government takes private property without initiating formal eminent domain proceedings. Since Apex had initiated formal condemnation proceedings, inverse condemnation was not applicable.
* Injunctive Relief: The court affirmed that a trial court has the inherent authority to order mandatory injunctive relief, such as the removal of the sewer line, to remedy a continuing trespass on private property. It stated the trial court erred in concluding it couldn’t order such relief because Ms. Rubin hadn’t specifically requested it in her initial pleadings. However, the court also acknowledged the need to balance the equities.
* Remand for Equitable Weighing: The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court, instructing it to weigh the equities and determine the appropriate remedy. This involves considering factors such as whether Apex acted in good faith, the impact on the homeowners who rely on the sewer line, and the potential for monetary damages versus a mandatory injunction. The trial court must also consider the range of appropriate remedies and damages.
* Dismissal of Inverse Condemnation Action: The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding Apex’s inverse condemnation declaratory judgment action. It instructed the Court of Appeals to remand to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the action with prejudice.

The Implications of the Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for property owners and municipalities in North Carolina. It reinforces the constitutional protections against the taking of private property for private benefit and underscores the importance of public purpose in eminent domain proceedings.

The ruling also provides guidance on the remedies available to landowners when their property rights are violated. While the court acknowledged the potential for mandatory injunctive relief, it emphasized the need for a trial court to carefully consider the equities involved before issuing such an order.

The case highlights the complexities of eminent domain disputes and the importance of following proper legal procedures. It serves as a reminder that municipalities must act within the bounds of their authority and that property owners have the right to challenge takings they believe are unlawful.

Case Information

Case Name:
Town of Apex v. Rubin

Court:
Supreme Court of North Carolina

Judge:
Riggs, Justice

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Administrative LawConstitutional Law

Professors Sue Washington State Ethics Board Over Email Policies

by Michael Reynolds & Ananya Sharma
written by Michael Reynolds & Ananya Sharma
Professors Sue Washington State Ethics Board Over Email Policies

Representative image for illustration purposes only

Two University of Washington professors are taking the Washington State Executive Ethics Board to court, alleging that the Board’s policies regarding the use of state email accounts are unconstitutional and infringe on their First Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the professors, reversing a lower court’s decision to dismiss the case.

The heart of the dispute lies in how the Ethics Board investigates professors who use their state email addresses. The professors, Abraham Flaxman and Amy Hagopian, are moderators of a faculty listserv, “Faculty Issues and Concerns,” used by over 2,000 instructors. The Board launched investigations after receiving complaints about the professors forwarding emails that allegedly contained political discussion and fundraising requests.

The Investigations and the Complaints

The Ethics Board’s investigations into the professors began with anonymous complaints. In one instance, Professor Flaxman was investigated for forwarding an email about a campaign to bring universal healthcare to Washington state. The Board, as part of its investigation, reviewed months of Flaxman’s emails, not just the one in question. Although the Board initially found reasonable cause to believe Flaxman had violated ethics laws, the case was later terminated in his favor.

Professor Hagopian faced a similar situation. She was investigated after forwarding an email about a strike by University of California researchers, which included a link to a “strike fund.” The Board reviewed over 2,000 emails from her account and ultimately found that she had improperly used state resources to solicit donations and for private benefit. As a result, the Board fined Hagopian $750.

The Professors’ Claims

Flaxman and Hagopian, along with a proposed class of listserv subscribers, filed a lawsuit in October 2023. They argue that the Ethics Board’s policies and practices violate the First Amendment. Specifically, they challenge the following Board practices:

* Allowing anonymous complaints.
* Conducting broad searches of professors’ emails during investigations.
* Treating incidental financial solicitations in emails as violations of state law.
* Levying allegedly excessive and disproportionate monetary penalties.

The professors contend that these policies chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by restricting the content of statements shared on the “Faculty Issues and Concerns” mailing list. They sought to have these policies invalidated by the court.

The District Court’s Initial Decision

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the professors’ lawsuit, claiming the claims were “unripe” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The court reasoned that the professors did not demonstrate that the Ethics Board’s policies had actually chilled their speech. Furthermore, the district court held that the professors’ emails were public records, meaning they had no First Amendment privacy interest in them. The court also determined the professors’ claims were “prudentially unripe” because the Ethics Board investigations against the professors were ongoing.

The Ninth Circuit’s Reversal

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, stating that the lower court erred in dismissing the lawsuit. The appeals court found that the professors’ claims were ripe for several reasons.

Constitutional Ripeness

The Ninth Circuit determined that the professors’ claims were ripe under a “pre-enforcement challenge” framework. This framework applies when a plaintiff challenges a law or policy before it is enforced, arguing it will chill their speech. The court found that the professors met the requirements for a pre-enforcement challenge because:

* They remain affiliated with the University.
* They are moderators of the listserv.
* The Ethics Board’s policies are still in place.
* The Board’s history of enforcement shows a plausible fear of prosecution.

The court emphasized that the professors faced a “credible threat of enforcement,” particularly given the Board’s past actions against them and the possibility of investigations triggered by anonymous complaints.

The court also said that even if the professors were advancing a “retaliation theory” based on past events, their claim was ripe. Because they had already been penalized for their speech, the dispute was not abstract or premature.

The court rejected the argument that the professors’ claims were unripe because they hadn’t specifically alleged that the Board’s policies chilled their speech. The court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged chilling, pointing to the Board’s practices, like allowing anonymous complaints and conducting broad email searches.

Prudential Ripeness

The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court erred in concluding the professors’ claims were prudentially unripe. Prudential ripeness involves considering the “fitness of the issues for judicial decision” and the “hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” The court found that the issues in the case were primarily legal, involving the Ethics Board’s policies that had already been applied to the professors, and thus fit for judicial decision. The court also determined that withholding review would impose a substantial hardship on the professors, who had been investigated and punished for their speech.

Dissenting Opinion

Judge Bennett dissented, arguing that the professors’ complaint failed to establish an injury that would give them standing to sue. He believed the complaint didn’t adequately allege that the Board’s policies chilled the professors’ speech or that they intended to engage in conduct that would violate the policies. However, Judge Bennett also acknowledged that facts relevant to the case had changed since the complaint was filed and suggested the professors should be allowed to amend their complaint.

What Happens Next?

The Ninth Circuit has reversed the district court’s dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings. This means the lawsuit will continue, and the professors will have the opportunity to argue their case against the Ethics Board. The court’s decision is a win for the professors, as it allows them to pursue their claims that the Ethics Board’s policies violate their First Amendment rights.

Case Information

Case Name:
Flaxman v. Ferguson

Court:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Judge:
Daniel A. Bress

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Administrative LawConstitutional Law

Bars vs. the Governor: NC Supreme Court Weighs Pandemic Restrictions

by Michael Reynolds & Ananya Sharma
written by Michael Reynolds & Ananya Sharma
Bars vs. the Governor: NC Supreme Court Weighs Pandemic Restrictions

Representative image for illustration purposes only

The North Carolina Supreme Court has issued a ruling in a case challenging the constitutionality of executive orders issued by former Governor Roy Cooper during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case, *Howell v. Cooper*, centered on restrictions placed on bars and nightclubs, and whether these measures violated the business owners’ right to earn a living. The court’s decision, while modifying and affirming the lower court’s ruling, clarified the standards for such claims and set the stage for further examination of the case.

The Core of the Dispute

The crux of the lawsuit, brought by bar owners and related businesses, was that the Governor’s executive orders, implemented in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, excessively limited their ability to operate, thereby infringing upon their constitutional rights to earn a living. The orders, which included mandatory closures and restrictions on alcohol sales, were challenged under the “Fruits of Their Own Labor Clause” and the “Law of the Land Clause” of the North Carolina Constitution. These clauses protect individuals’ rights to conduct lawful businesses and ensure due process under the law.

Sovereign Immunity and “Corum Claims”

A key legal hurdle in the case was the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which generally protects the state from being sued. However, the court recognized an exception for what are known as “Corum claims.” These claims allow individuals to sue the state directly under the state constitution if they allege a violation of their constitutional rights by a state actor, causing injury for which there is no other adequate state remedy. The court found that the bar owners’ claims could potentially fall under this exception.

The Court’s Analysis: Is it a “Colorable” Claim?

The Supreme Court focused on whether the bar owners’ claims were “colorable,” meaning they presented facts that, if true, could support a violation of their constitutional rights. The court applied the standards set forth in the *Kinsley v. Ace Speedway Racing, Ltd.* case, which outlined the criteria for determining the validity of state actions that affect the right to earn a living.

The Pleading Requirements: What Must Be Alleged?

To have a viable claim, the bar owners needed to show:

* State Action: That the restrictions were imposed by the state (through the Governor’s executive orders). This was not in dispute.
* Colorable Constitutional Claims: That the executive orders violated their constitutional rights. This was the central issue.
* Absence of Other Remedies: That there was no other adequate state remedy available. This was also not in dispute.

The Court’s Findings

The court found that the bar owners had met the requirements for a “colorable” claim. It held that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, could demonstrate a violation of their rights to earn a living. The court emphasized that at the pleading stage, it must treat the factual allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. The court’s opinion highlighted the restrictions imposed on the bars, including closures and limitations on alcohol sales, as potentially imposing a significant burden on their businesses.

The “Reasonably Necessary” Standard

The court reiterated that for a state action that burdens the right to earn a living to be constitutional, it must be “reasonably necessary to promote the accomplishment of a public good, or to prevent the infliction of a public harm.” This involves a “fact-intensive analysis” that considers both the effectiveness of the state action and the extent of the burden it places on the businesses. The court will need to decide if the measures were reasonable, given all the available options, when it makes its final decision.

The “Least Intrusive Remedy” Argument Rejected

The court also addressed the defendants’ argument that the bar owners should have sought the “least intrusive remedy” available. The court rejected this argument, stating that the least intrusive remedy is a consideration that arises *after* a constitutional violation has been proven, not as a requirement for initially bringing a claim.

The Dissenting Opinion: A Different View

Justice Earls wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority was expanding the scope of the “Fruits of Their Own Labor Clause” and inviting meritless litigation. Justice Earls contended that the Governor’s actions were a reasonable response to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, and that the restrictions, while impacting the bar owners, were not excessive. The dissent emphasized the uncertainty and urgency faced by the Governor during the pandemic and argued that the court should not second-guess those decisions with the benefit of hindsight.

Next Steps and Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision means the case will continue in the lower courts. The bar owners will have the opportunity to present evidence and argue their case, and the trial court will ultimately determine whether the executive orders were, in fact, unconstitutional. This case has important implications for the balance between public health measures and economic rights, particularly in times of crisis. The court’s decision provides some guidance on how to evaluate such claims, but the specific outcome of this case will depend on the evidence presented and the trial court’s application of the legal standards.

Case Information

Case Name:
TIFFANY HOWELL; CHESTER’S INC.; TRH, INC.; JACQUELINE DANIELLE BULL; J. DANIELLE LLC; JASON RUTH; BIG BOYZ, L.L.C.; MATTHEW MOREL; WILD CHERRY LN, L.L.C.; BENJAMIN REESE; MR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; TONY BASFORD; PLUS DUELING PIANOS, INC. ; BRYAN WHEELOCK; GREY GHOST ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; DREWRY WOFFORD, IV; NC HOUSE PARTY LLC v. ROY A. COOPER, III, in his official capacity as Governor; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; TIM MOORE, in his official capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives; PHIL BERGER, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the Senate

Court:
Supreme Court of North Carolina

Judge:
Chief Justice Newby

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Uncategorized

Witkoff Discusses Hostage Situation with Families in Israel

by admin
written by admin
Witkoff Discusses Hostage Situation with Families in Israel

Representative image for illustration purposes only

Witkoff Discusses Hostage Situation with Families in Israel

A Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, recently engaged with families of hostages held in Israel. This meeting occurred shortly after he spent time in Gaza, assessing the situation firsthand.

During the meeting, the hostage families voiced their concerns and shared their stories, but expressed disappointment that Mr. Wikoff did not provide any concrete plans for securing the release of their loved ones. One father, Michel Illouz, whose son was murdered in Hamas captivity following the October 7, 2023, raid, acknowledged that Witkoff listened attentively and expressed sympathy. However, he stated that he “didn’t hear anything new from him,” and only heard about American pressure to end the operation without any practical solutions being offered.

Specifically, there was no clarity regarding a timeline for resolving the hostage situation, and direct questions about deadlines went unanswered, leaving the families frustrated and seeking more tangible action.

According to reports, Mr. Witkoff conveyed that President Trump is advocating for a significant shift in strategy, moving away from a partial, phased ceasefire deal towards a comprehensive agreement that would ensure the simultaneous release of all hostages. He stated that President Trump “now believes that everybody ought to come home at once — no piecemeal deals. That doesn’t work.” This new approach aims to secure the release of all remaining live hostages in one unified negotiation. He added, “Now we have to get all the 20 [live hostages] at the same time. … We think that we have to shift this negotiation to all or nothing so that everybody comes home. We think it is going to be successful, and we have a plan around it.”

Prior to meeting with the families, Witkoff indicated that ceasefire talks had stalled due to what he described as Hamas’s lack of genuine interest in reaching a ceasefire agreement in Gaza. He suggested that Hamas was not acting in good faith and that alternative strategies were being considered to secure the hostages’ release and foster a more stable environment for the people of Gaza. He said, “While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith. We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza. It is a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way. We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and a permanent peace in Gaza.”

President Trump has also focused on the escalating hunger crisis in Gaza, sending both Witkoff and Israel Ambassador Mike Huckabee to the region to assess the situation. The visit aimed to provide President Trump with a clear understanding of the humanitarian conditions on the ground and to help develop a plan for delivering essential food and medical aid to the population of Gaza.

Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that there is no starvation in Gaza, Mr. Trump has publicly disagreed with this assessment. The situation in Gaza remains critical, with Israel and Hamas trading blame for the severe shortages of food and other vital necessities. President Trump has suggested that the quickest resolution would be for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages.

Read Full Story

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Uncategorized

Student Loan Wage Garnishment: What You Need to Know

by admin
written by admin
Student Loan Wage Garnishment: What You Need to Know

Representative image for illustration purposes only

Student Loan Wage Garnishment: What You Need to Know

Millions of student loan borrowers face the potential of wage garnishment starting as early as this summer. Estimates from credit bureau TransUnion indicate that approximately 3 million borrowers could enter default by August. This means they will be 270 days past due on their payments, putting them at risk of having 15% of their paychecks docked to cover the outstanding debt. The exact start date for wage garnishment remains unclear.

The end of the pandemic-era pause on student loan payments in May has forced borrowers to re-evaluate their financial situations. TransUnion also projects that another 2 million borrowers are on track to default in September.

A grace period implemented by the Biden administration, which shielded borrowers from negative credit reporting for late or missed payments, has now ended. Consequently, many borrowers have experienced negative impacts on their credit ratings.

It is crucial for borrowers to proactively manage their student loan debt to avoid wage garnishment. Kyra Taylor, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, emphasizes the importance of checking loan status on studentaid.gov to identify any loans already in default. Taking immediate action to remove loans from default is essential.

Borrowers may be unaware of their default status, particularly those who attended college or graduate school at different times or have various federal loan types, potentially leading to multiple loan servicers. In such cases, swift action is necessary to regain good standing. This can be achieved through a rehabilitation agreement, requiring nine consecutive income-based payments, or by consolidating loans into a new federal Direct Loan.

Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director at the Student Borrower Protection Center, highlights the extended period without wage garnishment, leading to potential unawareness among borrowers about their risk. Long wait times and dropped calls when contacting loan servicers, partly due to Education Department layoffs, add to the challenges. Bañez suggests contacting your congressperson and utilizing their casework tool to submit a constituent request for assistance with the Department of Education.

Until past-due payments are resolved or the default status is addressed, borrowers remain vulnerable to having up to 15% of their wages directly deducted from their paychecks.

The Department of Education has issued warnings to borrowers about potential tax refund and wage withholding if they fail to restart payments. However, specific timing details are still pending.

Richelle Brooks, an education administrator with $239,000 in outstanding debt from multiple degrees, expresses concern about her projected $3,000 monthly payments. She plans to enroll in coding classes at least half-time, which could defer her loans while she develops a financial plan.

Borrowers still have time to take action and prevent wage garnishment.

Taylor explains that the Department of Education must provide a 30-day notice before issuing a garnishment order to an employer. During this period, borrowers can request a hearing to object, citing financial hardship. They can also request a reduction in the garnishment amount and provide documentation of their income and expenses.

To request a hearing, borrowers must submit a written request, postmarked within 30 days of the garnishment order. The loan holder will then arrange the hearing. If unsure about the loan holder, borrowers can contact the Education Department’s Default Resolution Group.

Borrowers who were recently laid off and have not been in their current job for 12 consecutive months can also object to garnishment. Additionally, a hearing can be requested if an application for certain statutory discharges is pending. Common reasons for statutory discharge include school closure before degree completion, school owing a refund, total disability, or bankruptcy.

Taylor emphasizes that if a hearing is requested within 30 days of the garnishment notice, the department cannot initiate garnishment until a decision is made regarding the borrower’s objections and financial hardship request. While a hearing request can be submitted after the 30-day period, garnishment typically continues while the request is pending.

Read Full Story

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Uncategorized

Pope excites young Catholics at Holy Year festival.

by admin
written by admin
Pope excites young Catholics at Holy Year festival.

Representative image for illustration purposes only

Pope excites young Catholics at Holy Year festival.

Pope Leo XIV recently addressed hundreds of thousands of young people, urging them to embrace courageous choices for good during the Jubilee of Youth, a key event of the Vatican’s 2025 Holy Year. The encounter took place at the Tor Vergata field on Rome’s outskirts, where pilgrims from approximately 150 countries had camped out, enduring high temperatures that required cooling measures like misting trucks.

Speaking in Spanish, Italian, and English, Leo emphasized the importance of true friendship, cautioned against the perils of social media, and encouraged radical life choices such as marriage or religious vocations. He declared, “Friendship can really change the world. Friendship is a path to peace,” highlighting the need for “missionaries of the Gospel who are witnesses of justice and peace!”

Amidst the celebration, Leo somberly announced the deaths of two young pilgrims and the hospitalization of another, reportedly due to cardiac arrest. The vigil service preceded a morning Mass led by Leo, marking the culmination of the youth Jubilee.

Over the past week, Rome has been filled with young Catholics participating in their special Jubilee celebration, part of a Holy Year expected to draw 32 million people to the Vatican for a pilgrimage tradition spanning centuries. The city’s cobblestone streets echoed with the sounds of Rosary prayers and hymns, accompanied by guitars, bongo drums, and tambourines. Christian rock concerts and inspirational talks filled piazzas, while long queues formed at the Circus Maximus, where 1,000 priests offered confession in multiple languages.

Francisco Michel, a pilgrim from Mexico, described the experience as “something spiritual, that you can experience only every 25 years,” adding, “As a young person, having the chance to live this meeting with the pope I feel it is a spiritual growth.”

The event resembled a World Youth Day, reminiscent of the Catholic Woodstock festival initiated by St. John Paul II in Rome in 2000, also at Tor Vergata. During that event, John Paul addressed an estimated 2 million young people, calling them the “sentinels of the morning” at the dawn of the third millennium.

While officials initially anticipated 500,000 attendees, Leo and organizers suggested the number might reach 1 million. A final estimate from the Vatican is pending.

Despite some logistical challenges, such as long waits for food and lengthy commutes, participants like Chloe Jobbour, a 19-year-old Lebanese Catholic, embraced the experience. “It’s a bit messed up, but this is what is nice about the Jubilee,” she noted, highlighting the sense of community and shared faith.

The influx of young people has also impacted Rome residents. Some have experienced inconveniences due to overcrowded public transportation, leading to occasional frustrations. However, others have welcomed the enthusiasm and energy brought by the pilgrims. Premier Giorgia Meloni offered a video message, praising the event as an “extraordinary festival of faith, joy and hope.”

Rome hairdresser Rina Verdone, who lives near the Tor Vergata field, expressed her positive outlook, stating, “I think it’s marvelous.” She acknowledged the inconvenience of altered travel routes but considered it a worthwhile sacrifice. “You think of invasion as something negative. But this is a positive invasion,” she concluded, reflecting the overall sentiment of many Romans.

Read Full Story

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts