Appellate Advocacy Blog

Editor: Tessa L. Dysart
The University of Arizona
James E. Rogers College of Law

Saturday, June 20, 2020

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Saturday, June 20, 2020

6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d274d5bd970c-pi (960×720)

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 a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

  • Earlier this week, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that the plain language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. Widely seen as a landmark decision, the ruling applied textualist principles and found that the plain language unambiguously protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees because decisions discriminating for those reasons are—at their core—decisions discriminating because of sex. The opinion recognizes that "[i]t is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating ... based on sex.”  See the opinion and a sampling of the many reports from NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Bloomberg Law.
  • On Thursday, in another much-anticipated case, the Court ruled 5-4 that the administration’s attempt to end DACA is impermissible. Justice Roberts writes, “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. ‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is none of our concern.’ [citation omitted.] We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.” See the opinion and a sampling of the many reports including from The New York Times, CNN, NBC News, and NPR.  

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • Last week, the Fourth Circuit invoked the murder of George Floyd in its opinion reversing a lower court and refusing to apply qualified immunity to dismiss a lawsuit again police officers who shot a black American 22 times after the victim had been subdued. The opinion found that if the victim “was secured, then police officers could not constitutionally release him, back away, and shoot him. To do so violated [his] constitutional right to be free from deadly force under clearly established law." The opinion also states that, “[a]lthough we recognize that our police officers are often asked to make split-second decisions, we expect them to do so with respect for the dignity and worth of black lives. Before the ink dried on this opinion, the FBI opened an investigation into yet another death of a black man at the hands of police, this time George Floyd in Minneapolis. This has to stop.” See the opinion and reports from CNN, The Washington Post, and The National Law Journal.
  • Today, a federal court denied an emergency request from the Justice department block former national security adviser John Bolton's book from being published. The court held that, “while Bolton's unilateral conduct raises grave national security concerns, the government has not established that an injunction is an appropriate remedy.” See reports from The Hill, CNN, and NPR (find order at NPR link).   

June 20, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Justice, Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 8, 2020

Practice in Place: My Interview with David Lat

Two weeks ago I shared an interview that I did with Sean Marotta and Raffi Melkonian.  Today I am sharing an interview that I did recently with David Lat.  David is the founding editor of the popular blog Above the Law.  He is also now a managing director at Lateral Link. In this interview, David talks about his personal, near death experience with COVID-19.  He also shares his thoughts on the future of the legal practice post-COVID, the future of oral arguments in the appellate and Supreme Court, and which Justice he thinks would have the best Zoom background.  Thanks David for joining me for the interview!

Edited: Sorry about the video issues, I think that it is fixed.

 

 

 

 






 

 

 

June 8, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Court Reform, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Current Affairs, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Profession, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, June 6, 2020

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Saturday, June 6, 2020

6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d274d5bd970c-pi (960×720)

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 a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

In a 5-4 decision with Justice Roberts as the swing vote, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by a California church that challenged Covid-19 related restrictions on attendance at worship services. The church argued that the state guidelines limiting attendance at places of worship to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees violate constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. Justice Roberts concurred in the denial and wrote that the “restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment” and that the “Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States to guard and protect.” (Internal quotes and citations omitted.) See opinion and a sampling of the many reports from The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Associated Press, Reuters,

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News

The District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that a same-sex spouse cannot be denied Social Security survivor benefits for failure to meet the marriage duration requirement without consideration of whether the marriage was prohibited by unconstitutional laws barring same-sex marriage. For a surviving spouse to receive Social Security benefits, the couple must have been married for “a period of not less than nine months.” (42 U.S.C. 416(g).). The SSA argued that the provision was neutral because it applied equally to all seeking benefits. The court rejected that claim because same sex couples have been impacted by law prohibiting their marriages, which affects their ability to meet the marriage duration requirement.  The opinion recognizes that, “[b]ecause same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, and the underpinnings of the duration-of-marriage requirement has relied on the unconstitutional ban of that right, [the regulation] cannot be said to be rationally related to a legitimate interest to a surviving spouse.” See ruling and case summary and reports from Slate and NBCNews.

State Court Opinions and News

The nine justices of the Washington Supreme Court, in an extraordinary step, penned an open letter to the legal community addressing racial injustice. The letter recognizes the role of the judiciary and the legal community in the continuing injustices against black Americans. From the letter:  

Recent events have brought to the forefront of our collective consciousness a painful fact that is, for too many of our citizens, common knowledge: the injustices faced by black Americans are not relics of the past. We continue to see racialized policing and the overrepresentation of black Americans in every stage of our criminal and juvenile justice systems. Our institutions remain affected by the vestiges of slavery: Jim Crow laws that were never dismantled and racist court decisions that were never disavowed.

The legal community must recognize that we all bear responsibility for this on-going injustice, and that we are capable of taking steps to address it, if only we have the courage and the will. . . .

As judges, we must recognize the role we have played in devaluing black lives. This very court once held that a cemetery could lawfully deny grieving black parents the right to bury their infant. We cannot undo this wrong—but we can recognize our ability to do better in the future. We can develop a greater awareness of our own conscious and unconscious biases in order to make just decisions in individual cases, and we can administer justice and support court rules in a way that brings greater racial justice to our system as a whole.

See the full letter and reports from The National Law Journal, Law.360, and The Tacoma News Tribune.

June 6, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, State Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 22, 2020

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, May 22, 2020

6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d274d5bd970c-pi (960×720)

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 a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

  • The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Sudan must pay the over-$10 billion judgement awarded to the victims of the 1998 al-Qaeda bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The ruling allows Sudan to be held liable for both punitive and compensatory damages. A 2014 appellate ruling had determined that a 2008 law that permitted retroactive application of compensatory damages to cases involving state-sponsored terrorism did not extend to punitive damages.  The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and reinstated the 2012 judgment.  See opinion and reports from Bloomberg, The Washington Post, and The Associated Press.  

  • The Court refused to grant Idaho officials' request to block a transgender inmate’s surgery pending appeal.  The ruling leaves in place a Ninth Circuit order ruling that, by failing to provide the inmate’s gender confirmation surgery, Idaho violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Idaho is appealing to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided whether it will hear the case. See reports from The New York Times and NBC News.

  • The Court has refused to grant an “emergency” request by two Texas inmates to reinstate a district court order that had required a Texas prison to take measures to protect inmates against the threat of COVID-19. A federal appeals court stayed the order pending appeal and found that the measures required by the district court’s order went further than Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.  Although agreeing with the ultimate decision to deny the request, Justice Sotomayor issued a statement, to which Justice Ginsberg joined, to “highlight disturbing allegations” in the case. She writes: "It has long been said that a society's worth can be judged by taking stock of its prisons. That is all the truer in this pandemic, where inmates everywhere have been rendered vulnerable and often powerless to protect themselves from harm. May we hope that our country's facilities serve as models rather than cautionary tales." See Justice Sotomayor’s statement and reports in The New York Times, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg Law.

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The Fourth Circuit has allowed an emoluments suit against the president to proceed. The case, by Washington D.C. and Maryland, alleges that Donald Trump violated the Constitution by profiting from foreign and state patrons at his Washington, D.C., hotel. The court found a genuine dispute over the definition of an “emolument,” writing “we can hardly conclude that the President’s preferred definition of this obscure word is clearly and indisputably the correct one.” See opinion and a sampling of the many reports at The New York Times, The Courthouse New Service, The Hill, Politico, and The Washington Post.   

  • The Fifth Circuit has temporarily stayed a Texas district court’s May 19 ruling that would have allowed voters in Texas to vote by mail during the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court’s ruling found that the disability provision in the Texas vote-by-mail code applied to voters who “lack immunity from COVID-19 and fear infection at polling places.” See report at CNN, The Texas Tribune, and The Dallas Observer.

  • The Sixth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and vacated its decision finding that the “the Constitution provides a fundamental right to a basic minimum education” and defining that as an education that “plausibly provides access to literacy.”  This column reported on the Sixth Circuit’s right-to-education decision a few weeks ago.  See the order granting rehearing and reports from Bloomberg Law and Detroit Free Press.

State Court Opinions and News

  • In Michigan, the court have upheld the governor’s right to extend a stay-at-home order. Michigan residents claimed that the stay-at-home measures infringed on their constitutional rights.  The court recognized that the state has authority to enact policy when “faced with a public crisis” and determined that the policy was consistent with the law.  The court further iterated that a citizen’s constitutional rights are “subject to reasonable regulation by the state.”  See report by CBS News and The Hill.
  • In Wisconsin, the state supreme court struck down the governor’s stay-at-home order, ruling that the governor had overstepped his authority by extending the quarantine measures without consulting the legislature.  See the opinion and reports from The Associated Press, The Hill, and Wisconsin Public Radio.
  • In Oregon, the state supreme court stayed a county judge’s ruling that declared the governor’s COVID-19 measures concerning church gatherings “null and void.” See report in The Oregonian.

May 22, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, State Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 8, 2020

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, May 8, 2020

6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d274d5bd970c-pi (960×720)

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 a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

  • This week, the Supreme Court resumed oral argument but, for the first time, it heard argument via telephone and allowed the public real-time access. Some of the many reports include those from The Washington Post, NPR, NBC News, and The Associated Press.  Find the first telephonic oral argument here in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.   Because argument was held via telephone, Justice Ginsberg, who was hospitalized this week, was able to participate in oral argument on Wednesday from her hospital bed.  See reports from CNN, BBC, and USA Today.
  • The Supreme Court overturned the fraud convictions of the public officials in New Jersey’s "Bridgegate" scandal. The Court confirmed that the public officials did in fact realign toll lanes in New Jersey to cause traffic problems to “punish the mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to support the New Jersey Governor’s reelection bid.” However, because the officials did not obtain money or property, the Court unanimously held that these actions were not criminal under federal law. See the opinion and reports from CNN, Politico, and The Atlantic

  • The Court dismissed a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun ordinance. Instead of ruling on the merits, the Court determined that the challenge was moot because New York has repealed the ordinance. See reports from The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, Reuters, and The New York Times.  

  • The Court ruled that insurances companies are entitled to collect under the Affordable Care Act. The Court held that the government was obligated to honor the promise to protect insurance companies against the risks they took in participating in the exchanges established by Act.  See the opinion and reports in The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Associated Press, and Bloomberg News.

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The Tenth Circuit upheld the federal bump-stock ban against a challenge arguing that the executive branch had no authority to issue the ban. The court rejected this argument, accepting instead the ATF determination “that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks are ‘machineguns.’” The court found the statutory definition of “machinegun” to be ambiguous and the ATF’s interpretation to be reasonable, thus upholding the ban. See the opinion and reports from The Associate Press and Bloomberg Law

  • The Seventh Circuit sided with Chicago in a sanctuary city fight, holding that the Justice Department cannot withhold federal grants from cities that extend protections to undocumented immigrants. The ruling recognizes that “states do not forfeit all autonomy over their own police power merely by accepting federal grants” and that “the attorney general’s perception of the urgency of immigration enforcement does not corral for the executive branch the powers entrusted to the legislative branch.” See the opinion and reports from The Chicago Tribune and Reuters.

  • The Tenth Circuit upheld the lower court and struck Kansas’s voter ID law, finding its proof of citizenship requirement to be unconstitutional. Kansas argued that the law was necessary to protect against voter fraud. The court however noted the significant burden on the over 31,000 voters who had their registration applications cancelled or suspended and found that interests of the state do “not justify the burden imposed on the right to vote.” This decision binds not only Kansas but all states within the jurisdiction of the Tenth circuit, including Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. See opinion and reports from The New York Times,  The Courthouse News Service, and an ACLU press-release.

  • In Wisconsin, four strip clubs suing for relief related to the COVID-19 shut down have won preliminary injunction in a First Amendment case. The strip clubs claimed discrimination in violation of the First Amendment after their applications for emergency federal loans were denied due to the sexual nature of the businesses. The injunction preserves the clubs’ eligibility for small business loans. The ruling concluded that the plaintiffs would likely succeed in demonstrating that their businesses are not prurient and that the regulation violates the First Amendment. See opinion and a report in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

May 8, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, April 24, 2020

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, April 24, 2020

6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d274d5bd970c-pi (960×720)

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 a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

The Supreme Court issued (from home) a number of opinions this week, including:

  • Barton v. Barr: The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision holding that a US permanent resident of over 30 years was ineligible to have his deportation cancelled. The case concerned the interpretation of an immigration law that allows immigrants who were deemed “deportable” based on the commission of certain crimes to petition to have their deportation cancelled. The decision interpreted a statutory provision known as the “stop-time” provision, which requires that an immigrant can only be eligible for deportation cancellation if the immigrant has been a continuous resident for at least seven years without committing a serious crime (the crime that renders an immigrant “deportable” can apparently have been committed at any time). The issue came down to whether the “serious crime” in the stop-time provision has to be one of the “certain crimes” that renders an immigrant “deportable.”  The Court affirmed the lower court’s interpretation of the statute and ruled that the crime did not need to be one of the crimes that is listed as a deportable crime. See reports at The Jurist and Bloomberg Law.
  • County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund: The Supreme Court broadly interpreted the “functionally equivalent” test in the Clean Water Act. The law requires a permit for a direct discharge of pollutants into federally regulated rivers and oceans or its functional equivalent. The issue was whether Maui County violated the Act by injecting wastewater underground without a permit. The Court concluded that a permit is required “if the addition of the pollutants through groundwater is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge from the point source into navigable waters” and retuned the case to the circuit court.  See reports at The Hill, The Jurist, USA Today, The Associated Press, and The National Law Review.

  • Ramos v. Louisiana: This decision affirms that non-unanimous jury verdicts for serious crimes is unconstitutional and that the requirement applies to states cases as well as federal, which overturns precedent from the 1970s. The decision affects only two states: Louisiana, where the case originated and whose recent law barring non-unanimous jury decisions only applies to verdicts from after 2018, and Oregon, the only state that still allows non-unanimous verdicts. The decision recognized that allowing convictions with non-unanimous juries was rooted in racism, noting that Louisiana had adopted the rule as a way to maintain the “supremacy of the white race” and that the Oregon law could be traced to efforts to dilute “the influence of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities” on juries. Many see this 6-3 decision (and its concurrences and dissents) on what may seem to be a straightforward issue as illuminating on the issue of the role of precedent in future cases. See some of the many reports at The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, Reuters, and the New York Times from Adam Liptak and Linda Greenhouse.
  • Ramos is also noteworthy (especially for legal writers) as being possibly the first Supreme Court decision to have footnoted all citations (there have been dissents that have previously footnoted citations). See Twitter discussion on both sides of that debate here and here.

Other opinions issued this week can be found here: Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP; Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian; and Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The Sixth Circuit ruled that “the Constitution provides a fundamental right to a basic minimum education,” which it defined as an education that “plausibly provides access to literacy.” This decision allows students in Detroit’s public schools to go forward with their claims that they have been denied access to literacy. Though the Supreme Court has discussed this issue, it has never decided it. See opinion and reports at The ABA Journal, The Detroit Free Press, and The National Review,  and see a 2018 New Yorker article on the issue.

  • In Tennessee, a US District Court has blocked the state’s order prohibiting procedural abortions during COVID-19.  The opinion recognizes that “[d]elaying a woman's access to abortion even by a matter of days can result in her having to undergo a lengthier and more complex procedure that involves progressively greater health risks, or can result in her losing the right to obtain an abortion altogether.”  See report in The Tennessean, The Associate Press, and CNN.  But in Arkansas and Texas this week, state bans have been upheld or reinstated. In Arkansas, the Eight Circuit dissolved a judge’s restraining order that had allowed surgical abortions to continue after the AR department of health told clinics to stop performing procedures unless needed to protect the life or health of the mother.  See opinion and reports at The Associate Press, The Jurist, and Law360. And, in Texas, the Fifth Circuit has reinstated most of Texas’s abortion ban, ruling that medication abortions (those induced with pills) may also be restricted, but only as applied to those who would reach Texas’s 22-week gestational limit for a legal abortion while the ban was in place. This ruling comes less than a week after it had allowed them to continue.  See opinion and reports from Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Reuters, The Hill, and Bloomberg.

  • In the face of a Second Amendment challenge, the Fifth Circuit confirmed the validity of a statute that prohibits the possession of a firearm by a person who is subject to a restarting order due to a conviction for domestic violence.  See opinion.

Appellate Practice Tips

A recent Texas Appellate Law Podcast this week covered tips for using an iPad as appellate lawyer with guest Jeff Richardson, whose blog is iPhone J.D. Thanks, Jeff for the email!

April 24, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

Phantom Precedents in Ramos v. Louisiana

If stare decisis really is for suckers, the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana[1] was an unremarkable end to the anachronistic Apodaca v. Oregon[2] decision permitting states to convict criminal defendants without unanimous jury verdicts. But for those that have argued for a strong stare decisis tradition and defended the doctrine’s importance, the Ramos opinion’s sustained discussion of when to overrule a precedent is a fascinating read.

First, Ramos reiterated that a relatively weak tradition of stare decisis is in vogue on the Supreme Court. In a process that culminated in 2018’s Janus v. AFSCME opinion,[3] the Court has recently moved towards a version of stare decisis that focuses on the poor quality of a precedent’s reasoning, even permitting the Justices to overrule on that basis alone. In contrast, a strong stare decisis tradition sets “poor reasoning” as a condition precedent to stare decisis analysis, not a ground for reversal; such reversals occur only if there is a special justification, such as unworkability, strong reliance interests, new legal developments, or vastly changed facts. Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch quoted the weak version of stare decisis in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt—which in turn relied upon the formulation in Janus—to emphasize that the quality of a decision’s reasoning is the primary consideration within stare decisis analysis.[4] His argument against Apodaca then focused on its “gravely mistaken” reasoning, which made it an outlier in the Court’s Sixth Amendment and incorporation jurisprudence and engendered the reliance of only two states.[5] In addition to the three Justices that joined Gorsuch’s opinion in full, two concurring Justices, Cavanaugh and Thomas, would likewise make the quality of a precedent’s reasoning the primary consideration, if not the singular consideration, in the stare decisis tradition.[6] And even the three-Justice dissent made its argument in defense of Apodaca on the weak stare decisis tradition’s terms. The dissent—an unexpected alignment of Justices Alito, Roberts, and Kagan—argued that Apodaca was not nearly as poorly reasoned as the majority would have it, but was silent on whether such poor reasoning should be a reason to overrule.[7] The dissent’s silence on that point was even more thunderous given Kagan’s prior insistence that “it is not enough [to overrule because] five Justices believe a precedent wrong.”[8]

Second, Ramos introduced a new facet to the stare decisis debate. Can some precedents be so fractured and incomprehensible as to be no precedent at all, becoming a “phantom precedent?”[9] Three Justices that joined the primary opinion in full argued that Apodaca was just such a jurisprudential apparition. For that trio, Apodaca failed to supply a “governing precedent” because its controlling opinion came from a single Justice, Powell, supporting a theory of “dual-track” Sixth Amendment incorporation that a majority of the Apodaca Court itself rejected.[10] And while Sotomayor wrote separately without adopting that portion of the primary opinion, her own view was remarkably similar. She claimed Apodaca was a “universe of one” that was so “irreconcilable with . . . two strands of constitutional precedent” that its precedential value was minimal, if not evanescent.[11]  

Those opinions offered little insight into how to identify the phantom precedents within the many fractured opinions the Court issues each term. Perhaps Apodaca was uniquely unable to generate precedential value; without any guiding principles to identify why that decision was a phantom, it is hard to tell. Perhaps the view that Apodaca is a phantom precedent merely expresses discomfort with the rule in Marks v. United States that the Court’s holding in a fractured opinion is “that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.”[12] Powell’s Apodaca opinion seems to fit that bill, but perhaps the Ramos Court marks the start of a new method to measure the holding of fractured opinions. Or perhaps Ramos intimates the Supreme Court’s desire to allow some of its opinions to have little or no precedential effect, much like the now commonplace unpublished decisions that I have discussed elsewhere on this blog.

Ramos is a complex decision with many layers to unpack beyond the few I’ve mentioned here. But its take on stare decisis is utterly fascinating. In future years, it may mark an important turning point for a doctrine whose death has been reported with great exaggeration.

 

[1] 590 U.S. ___ (2020).

[2] 406 U.S. 404 (1972).

[3] 585 U.S. __ (2018).

[4] Ramos, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) (slip op., at 20).

[5] Id. (slip op., at 20-22).

[6] Id. (slip op., at 7-8, 10-11) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (suggesting that the first factor in stare decisis analysis is whether the precedent is “grievously wrong,” which Apodaca was); Id. (slip op., at 2-3) (Thomas, J., concurring) (claiming that “demonstrably erroneous” decisions must be overturned irrespective of any practical stare decisis considerations).

[7] Id. (slip op., at 13-15) (Alito, J., dissenting).

[8] Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. __ (2019) (slip op., at 16) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (citing Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. __ (2015) (slip. op., at 8)).

[9] Ramos, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) (slip op., at 7) (Alito, J., dissenting).

[10] Id. (slip op., at 16).

[11] Id. (slip op., at 2) (Sotomayor, J., concurring).

[12] 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977).

April 22, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Court Reform, Appellate Justice, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, Rhetoric, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 20, 2020

Historic Arguments During Historic Times

I’m a Houstonian, so today’s below zero oil prices , a first from reports I’ve seen, have been top of mind as I work from my dining room table during the COVID-19 pandemic. That entire last sentence makes my head spin. Buyers paying sellers not to deliver oil. It’s historic. Just four months ago we were looking at the start of a new decade, full of hope. Now, even as I look out my window at the blooming flowers and see all the signs of spring (or early summer here in Houston), I wonder will my family be okay? My students, friends, and colleagues? My city? Our country? How much will institutions have to change? What will the world look like when it’s over?

As much as I love studying history, living through it is painful. Some of the historic events we are seeing, COVID-19 death rates topping the cause of death, record unemployment, speak of incredible individual suffering. Other historic changes are being forced upon institutions slow to change.

Over my last several posts, I’ve followed the Supreme Court’s postponement of Oral Arguments, then the holding pattern that arguments this month and next were in. Finally, on April 13, 2020 the Court issued a release stating that 13 cases would be heard by telephone. Here is an excellent discussion of the Court’s pivot.

As we saw in last week’s post by Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman, other appellate courts have moved oral arguments online with success. Interestingly, the Supreme Court has decided to do its arguments telephonically, despite the video conferencing technology that is readily available and being used in other courts around the country. As Amy Howe points out “They may have decided to go with remote arguments by teleconference in the short term, despite the potential effect on the dynamics of the arguments, because they would rather live with the longer-term implications – live audio versus live video – of that choice.” I’m interested to see how well the justices avoid talking over each other and what impact the format has on the advocates. As we’ve all probably seen in our own Zoom meetings, people talk on top of each other over video conference, too, so video conferencing may not solve much on that account.

On the whole, the Court’s shift to having some form of remote oral argument is a big one. It was likely a difficult decision, but it was a necessary one. In a time of great uncertainty, knowing that our highest court is operational and willing to decide the complex and important cases that come before can give some reassurance. It’s a signal that even though it isn’t business as usual, business is getting done.

April 20, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Court Reform, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Mandamus and the Need for Speedy Clarity

Mandamus is, and should be, a rare remedy. Over my years of practice I have filed mandamus less than twenty times in state or federal courts. Yet I have done so three times, and almost a fourth, in just the last six months. As a result, I have had a chance to ponder the unique nature of this remedy and want to offer a few tips if you find yourself having to file this unique "appeal."

In federal court, the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)) grants federal appellate courts the power to issue writs of mandamus. Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, used only in exceptional circumstances that arise from emergencies or issues of national importance.  LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957). If there is any other remedy by appeal or award (such as a money judgment for damages) the remedy is not proper.Most state courts have similar jurisdiction and follow the same general rules.

The error challenged must also generally be "clear." This means, in most cases, that only ministerial duties can be challenged. If there is even a hint of discretion in performing the challenged act, mandamus will likely be denied.

In general, the suit is filed against the officer that abused their discretion. You are thus essentially "suing" the judge, clerk, or other official that clearly violated their duty.

Mandamus must also generally be filed quickly. While there is no deadline in most cases, there is a form of laches applied to mandamus by most courts. And mandamus is often used in situations where an injunction or other order has gone into effect or will go into effect in hours or days.

Mandamus thus offers a unique drafting challenge. You must act quickly. In some cases, within hours of the challenged action (or inaction). Yet you must show that the error is clear, and that there is no other remedy than mandamus. And you must provide all of the record information necessary to support the arguments raised, often without benefit of an official record.

This flies in the face of the usual appellate-lawyer temperament. We are, by and large, a careful and deliberate crowd. Mandamus requires us to shoot from the hip, but still hit the target squarely.

To do so, you must be ruthlessly clean and simple in your analysis. String cites, deep-dive  analysis, and policy arguments must often be discarded in order to cut to the point. And subsidiary arguments are often discarded in favor of a clean main point.

To make sure that my point is cleanly delivered, I try to focus in on a clean statement of the issue and on headers that deliver the entire argument in themselves. I know that the court is likely to start with the table of contents, so I want that table of contents to deliver the argument well. If there is a subsidiary issue that is not addressed in the headers, it should be cut or relegated to the footnotes.

Every necessary point is also made explicit. I do not leave to chance that any part of my burden for mandamus will be rejected. So the lack of adequate alternative remedies is a header. So is the timeliness of the challenge. And the error is explained with subheaders parsing out each step of the analysis.

If I am seeking emergency relief in addition to the mandamus that requires immediate action by the court, I state this explicitly in the mandamus, near the beginning. I then file the motion for emergency relief with the mandamus, if at all possible, so that the court has full briefing on why the emergency relief is necessary.

Finally, and this is the most challenging part for me, I try to stop editing when the mandamus is "good enough." Because of sharp time constraints, a few maxims should be kept in mind:

  • Voltaire: “The best is the enemy of the good.”
  • Confucius: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without."
  • Shakespeare: “Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.”

You must edit and clarify with great care. But you also must know when to quit. In a mandamus, this may mean that you only have a few drafts before you must file.

This is the hardest part of a mandamus. You are already somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that you are filing an "extraordinary writ" with so few rules and procedures to guide you. You are probably uncomfortable with the idea of "suing" a judge you may be appearing before again (although you are always carefully challenging the ruling, not the officer). And now, in doing so, you must act quickly and without the comfort of repetitive drafting over time.

But that is the challenge of mandamus. Quick, accurate, and simplified arguments are key. In learning to do so, you may learn to apply those principles to the rest of your work.

 

 

April 14, 2020 in Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Writing, State Appeals Courts | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, April 10, 2020

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, April 10, 2020

6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d274d5bd970c-pi (960×720)

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 a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

  • The Supreme Court blocked an extended deadline for absentee voting in the Wisconsin primary this week. In the wake of COVID-19 shutdowns across the country, Governor Tony Evers had  attempted to stop in-person voting. The District Court overturned the ban but allowed absentee ballots mailed and postmarked after election day, April 7, to be counted if received by April 13. The Supreme Court overturned the District Court’s deadline extension, saying that “[e]xtending the date by which ballots may be cast by voters . . . for an additional six days after the scheduled election day fundamentally alters the nature of the election.” See the opinion and reports in The New York Times and NBC News.
  • The Supreme Court will not hear a challenge to the DC Metro policy that bans religious ads. The Archdiocese of Washington argued that the Washington Transit Authority policy violates the First Amendment.  See reports from USA Today, The Washington Times, CNN, and The Hill.
  • The Supreme Court has cancelled April oral arguments due to COVID-19. A News Release stated that the Court will “consider rescheduling some cases from the March and April sessions before the end of the Term, if circumstances permit.”  See comment from The Washington Post, The Hill, CNN, and Reuters.    

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The Fifth Circuit has allowed Texas to enforce its abortion ban during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court overturned a Texas district court, which had blocked the ban because it prevented a “Texas women from exercising what the Supreme Court has declared is [a] fundamental constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is viable.” See the decision and reports from The Hill, Reuters, and The Associated Press
  • The D.C. Circuit has overturned the lower court’s block of four death penalty sentences, allowing the Justice Department’s plan to resume executions of federal death row inmates after a 16-year hiatus. The Federal Court had stayed the executions and had issued a preliminary injunction based on concerns about the government’s lethal injection method. See decision and reports from Courthouse News, The Associated Press, and The Wall Street Journal.
  • The First Circuit rules that “so help me god” in the naturalization oath for U.S. citizenship is constitutional. The ruling rejected an atheist claim that it violated her First Amendment rights. See report from Bloomberg Law (subscription required).

Covid-19 and the Courts

The Judicial Conference has temporarily approved the use of video and teleconferencing for some criminal proceedings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.  See the News Release.

April 10, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, March 27, 2020

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, March 27, 2020

6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d274d5bd970c-pi (960×720)

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 a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that states can eliminate the insanity defense for accused criminals who suffer from mental illness. The ruling upholds a Kansas law that prevents defendants from arguing that diminished mental capacity impaired their ability to understand right from wrong. The court rejected the claim that the law was unconstitutional.  See the opinion and report from the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Hill, NPR, and APNews.

  • The Supreme Court ruled that states may not be sued for copyright infringement. Specifically, the Court held that the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act was an unconstitutional abrogation of state sovereign immunity. The ruling prohibited an underwater videographer’s suing North Carolina for using his copyrighted videos of a submerged ship used by Blackbeard. See the opinion and reports from NPR, Reuters, Bloomberg, ArsTechnica, and National Law Review.

  • The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a lower court used the wrong legal standard in a racial discrimination lawsuit. The Court ruled that, for his discrimination case to survive, media mogul Byron Allen must show that race was the determining reason that Comcast refused to carry his channels and sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration. Legal experts and civil rights groups warned that the Comcast victory could make it more difficult to bring racial discrimination cases by setting a high bar. See the opinion and reports from Reuters, Bloomberg, CNBC, and The Hill.    

    The three decisions were issued remotely this week. See reports on the three decisions from The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News:

  • The Second Circuit affirmed the ruling that the president’s practice of blocking critics from his Twitter account violates the First Amendment. The court will not rehear the case despite a request from the Justice Department. See the ruling and reports from The Washington Post, Politico, The Washington Times, The Associate Press, and CNN.

  • The First Circuit upheld a ruling that the Justice Department cannot compel cities to comply with federal immigration authorities as a condition of receiving federal grants. The cities of Providence and Central Falls had sued the Department of Justice for requiring that recipients of a federal criminal-justice grant cooperate with authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration law. The ruling states that the statutory formula outlining how the grant can be allocated “simply does not allow the DOJ to impose by brute force conditions on [such] grants to further its own unrelated law enforcement priorities.“ See the ruling and reports from Bloomberg and Providence Journal.

COVID-19 and the Courts

  • More courts are holding virtual oral arguments and some are making those arguments available online.  For example, see the Eleventh Circuit’s announcement, the Ninth Circuit’s announcement, the DC Circuit’s announcement, and the Second Circuit’s announcement.
  • New York has issued a wide-ranging order suspending statutes of limitation.  The  executive order temporarily suspended statutes of limitations, service, and other legal time periods through April 19, 2020.

  • Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice has asked state judges to release nonviolent inmates to protect against the spread of Covid-19. See report.

Advocacy tips

Tips from practitioners on telephonic oral argument:

March 27, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, Oral Argument, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, March 13, 2020

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, March 13, 2020

6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d274d5bd970c-pi (960×720)

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 a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News:

  • The Supreme Court will hear a case from Mississippi that looks at the constitutional limits of sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison without parole, specifically whether it is a constitutional violation to impose the sentence absent a finding that the defendant is incapable of rehabilitation. See report from the Hill and the NY Times.

  • This week, the Supreme Court granted an emergency request to lift a Ninth Circuit block on an administration immigration policy. The ruling leaves in place the policy that requires thousands of people seeking asylum to wait in Mexico while their claims are adjudicated. See Reuters report.

  • A recent study from Yale looks at the practice of the Supreme Court that gives the solicitor general oral argument time as a “friend of the court.”  The study looks at the history of the practice and its effect on the adversarial process.  See the study and a report in the NY Times.

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News:

  • The US District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the lower court and held that the Justice Department must release the secret grand jury evidence lawmakers are seeking in the ongoing investigations into the president. See the opinion and a sampling of the reports from the Washington Post, the NY Times, Bloomberg, the Hill.

  • The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Led Zepplin in the appeal of a copyright suit claiming the ever-popular “Stairway to Heaven” copied a song by the band Spirit. The en banc opinion of the 11-judge panel affirmed the jury decision that the songs were not substantially similar. The court also took “the opportunity to reject the inverse ratio rule, under which [the Court has] permitted a lower standard of proof of substantial similarity where there is a high degree of access.” The Court ruled that this “formulation is at odds with the copyright statute and we overrule our cases to the contrary.” Some claim that this may be a “precedent-setting win for musical acts accused of plagiarism.” AP News. See a sampling of the many reports here: Rolling Stone, the LA Times, the NY Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, Law.com’s site “The Recorder” (subscription), the Wall Street Journal (subscription).

  • The US District Court for the District of Columbia determined that it lacked the expertise to evaluate a Guantánamo Bay prisoner to determine whether he qualifies for medical repatriation in consideration of his writ for habeas corpus. Instead, in a first for federal courts, the Court ordered a mixed medical panel of American and foreign physicians to evaluate the mental health of the prisoner, Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi Arabian man held at Guantánamo for more than 18 years. See the ruling and reports from the NY Times, the Washington Post (subscription), and the ABA Journal.

COVID-19 and the Courts

COVID-19 is, of course, affecting court operations. Many courts are closing or restricting public access. The Supreme Court has closed its doors to the public as of March 12; the closure will not extend case filing deadlines under Supreme Court Rule 30.1.  For general information about other court closures and restriction, Law360 has an updating list of closures and restricts here. For specific courts, see individual court websites, many of which include statements specific to COVID-19 procedures.

March 13, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Justice, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, March 8, 2020

Oral Argument Recap: June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo

On March 4, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, an important case concerning the states’ ability to regulate abortion providers and access to abortion services. Specifically, the Court will decide the constitutionality of a law in Louisiana that requires abortion providers to obtain hospital admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of where the providers perform abortions.

By way of brief background, in Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to privacy, which the Court recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut (and other cases), encompassed a right to abortion.[1] In so holding, the Court established a trimester framework. Under this framework, laws restricting access to abortions during the first trimester were presumptively unconstitutional. During the second trimester, states could only regulate abortion to protect a woman’s health and, in the third trimester, states were generally permitted to prohibit abortions, except to save or preserve the life of the mother. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Court upheld Roe but rejected the trimester framework. In so doing, the Court adopted an “undue burden” test. Under this standard, the constitutionality of laws regulating abortion depends on whether such laws unduly burden a woman’s right to access abortion services. After Planned Parenthood, several states enacted legislation to regulate and, arguably, restrict abortion access, and the Court, applying the undue burden standard, addressed the validity of these laws on a case-by-case basis. As a result, the nature and scope of the right to abortion remains unresolved.

The Court’s decision in June Medical Services will be among the most significant in the Court’s abortion jurisprudence. To begin with, the Court’s decision will clarify the precedential value of Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstadt, where the Court invalidated – by a 5-4 margin – a nearly identical law in Texas.[2] In Hellerstadt, the Court held that the law in question conferred no material benefit on women and would likely lead to the closure of several abortion clinics, thus constituting an undue burden on the right to obtain abortion services. Additionally, the Court’s decision will likely impact the states’ ability to restrict abortion access in future cases and may clarify the scope of the right to abortion. Third, although not likely, the Court may adopt a new or, at least, modified standard by which to assess the constitutionality of laws regulating abortion, particularly because the “undue burden” standard has arguably been difficult to interpret and apply with any degree of consistency or predictability.

At oral argument, the justices appeared divided.[3]

Justice Samuel Alito raised the issue of third-party standing and questioned whether physicians who provided abortions could challenge the law on behalf of women. Specifically, Justice Alito appeared concerned that the physicians’ interests (i.e., avoiding unnecessary or burdensome regulations) conflicted with the interests of women seeking abortion services (i.e., safety and continuity of care). The majority of justices, however, did not appear to find this argument persuasive.

Chief Justice Roberts focused primarily on whether the benefits (and burdens) of laws requiring admitting privileges for abortion providers may differ on a state-by-state basis. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also questioned whether these laws would be considered constitutional if abortion providers could easily obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Roberts’s and Kavanaugh’s questions suggested that the Court may be considering whether these laws are facially constitutional or whether their constitutionality depends on the facts of each case.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, along with Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan, appeared skeptical of the law. For example, Justice Ginsburg questioned the utility of requiring that abortion providers obtain admitting privileges within thirty miles of where abortion serves are provided. As Justice Ginsburg stated, since the relatively small number of women who experience complications from medical or surgical abortions go to a hospital nearest to their residence, which almost always outside of the thirty-mile radius, the admitting privileges requirement arguably served no legitimate purpose.

Justice Sotomayor questioned whether, given the various requirements for obtaining admitting privileges at Louisiana’s hospitals, abortion providers could realistically obtain such privileges. For example, one factor is whether the physician has admitted a sufficient number of patients to the hospital to which the physician is applying. Given the fact that women rarely experience complications from abortions and thus are not admitted to a nearby hospital, abortion providers would not, in most instances, meet this requirement. This and other questions suggested that the law in Louisiana, like the law in Texas, reflected an attempt to restrict or even prohibit abortions, rather than to safeguard women’s health. The attorneys for Louisiana disagreed, arguing that most of the physicians who challenged the law had not made reasonable attempts to obtain admitting privileges and thus could not reasonably claim that they were unable to obtain such privileges.

Justice Breyer also questioned whether the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn a portion of the district court’s factual findings satisfied the “clearly erroneous standard.”

And Justice Kagan appeared skeptical of the argument that the law served a “credentialing purpose,” particularly because hospitals could deny admitting privileges to a physician based on factors having no relationship to the quality of that physician.

Ultimately, Justice Breyer expressed a concern that has arguably plagued the Court’s abortion jurisprudence: the difficulty in adopting a reliable, predictable, and workable rule.

I understand there are good arguments on both sides. Indeed, in the country people have very strong feelings and a lot of people morally think it’s wrong and a lot of people morally think the opposite is wrong. And in Casey, and the later cases, I think personally the Court is struggling with the problem of what kind of rule of law do you have in a country that contains both sorts of people.[4]

Based on the oral argument, the Court’s decision in June Medical Services is difficult to predict. The difficulty of applying the nebulous “undue burden” standard, the politically divisive nature of this issue, principles of stare decisis, and concerns for the Court’s institutional legitimacy may certainly influence one or more of the justices.

Notwithstanding, based on oral argument, it seems that the Court may decide June Medical Services by a 5-4 vote, and if the Court invalidates the law, the most likely scenario would involve Chief Justice Roberts joining Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer in the majority. However, it is uncertain how Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh will vote, or how the majority decision will be written. It appears unlikely that the Court will simply overturn Whole Women’s Health; rather, if the Court upholds the law, it will likely do so by distinguishing Whole Women’s Health on the facts. The problem is that, if the Court chooses this option, it will fail to effectively guide lower courts and lawmakers, thus inviting additional litigation in the future. As such, the Court may hold that laws requiring abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges are facially unconstitutional because, regardless of the state in which such laws are enacted, they confer no benefit to women.

[1] 410 U.S. 113 (1973); see also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

[2] 579 U.S.             ; 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016).

[3] See June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, Transcript of Oral Argument (March 4, 2020), available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-1323_d18e.pdf.

[4] Id. at 61:24 to 62:9.

March 8, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Justice, Appellate Practice, Current Affairs, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Profession, Oral Argument, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, February 23, 2020

When Drafting a Brief or Preparing for an Oral Argument, How Do You Know When to Stop Researching?

One question that most, if not all, attorneys have asked themselves when drafting an appellate brief is: “When should I stop researching?”

This concern is certainly understandable. After all, the last thing that an attorney wants is for a judge to ask “Why didn’t you cite X case, which is directly relevant to the legal issue before the court?” or state “I would agree with your argument counselor, except for the fact that X case was decided by the Supreme Court four years ago and the Court ruled against your position.” If this happens, you will be embarrassed, you will lose credibility with the court, and your client will have little if any chance of succeeding on the merits.

To avoid this problem, attorneys must research a legal issue sufficiently to ensure that they know, among other things, the relevant legal standards, including the standard of review, the governing precedent (particularly cases that are factually similar), and favorable and unfavorable authority. But how do attorneys know when they have done enough research? They rely on several criteria (along with experience) to make this determination and ensure that they are fully prepared to draft an excellent brief or deliver a persuasive oral argument.

1.    Identify the appropriate scope of your research

Before you begin researching, you should identify the universe within which you should be researching. Doing so will enable you to identify the sources of binding legal authority and ensure that you confine your research to the most relevant precedent.  When making this determination, ask yourself the following questions:

  • Is your case in state or federal court?
  • Does your case involve a state or federal issue?
  • Does the legal issue involve a common law cause of action, statute, constitutional provision, or administrative regulation?
  • Are you arguing for a correction in a lower court's decision or an expansion of the law?
  • Have the courts in your jurisdiction previously addressed the legal issue or is it an issue of first impression?

For example, if your case is in state court and involves a state law issue, your legal research will focus primarily on prior decisions in your state by the state supreme court and the appellate courts. If your case is in federal court and involves a federal issue, your research will focus primarily on decisions from the circuit in which you are litigating. If your case is in federal court and the legal issue involves a state law claim, your legal research (on the substantive law) will focus on decisions by the state supreme court and appellate courts. 

You must also identify whether the legal issue relates to a common law cause of action, statute, or constitutional provision. If, for example, you are appealing a case where a state court found that your client acted negligently, you should only research cases in that state (from the state supreme court and the appellate courts). In such a case, your research should focus primarily on cases decided by courts within your jurisdiction that have applied and interpreted the relevant law, and that involve similar facts, if possible.

Importantly, the above advice applies to cases where you are arguing for a correction in the law.

If, however, you are arguing for an expansion of the law, you will likely expand your research to cases from courts outside of your jurisdiction that have considered this issue and that have expanded the law in the manner that you are advocating. For example, if, in 2015, you were arguing before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that same-sex marriage bans violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, you should have cited in your brief and at oral argument the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Baskin v. Bogan, which previously held that same-sex marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Consequently, in cases where, as in the above example, the law is unsettled in your jurisdiction (or is an issue of first impression) you can and should rely on cases from other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue. Although this precedent is not binding on the court, doing so will help to guide the court in reaching an informed and, hopefully, favorable decision.

Ultimately, determining the scope of your research is critical because it will enable you to identify the sources of binding, as opposed to merely persuasive, authority and it will ensure that you avoid conducting unnecessary or irrelevant research.

2.    Look for repetition

You will likely know that you have researched a legal issue sufficiently when you encounter repetition in the relevant case law. For example, if you are researching the negligence standard and you read fifteen cases in which the courts rely upon the same criteria to determine if a party was negligent (i.e., duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages), you can be confident that you’ve identified the relevant legal standard. Likewise, if you are researching how the courts define causation for purposes of determining negligence and you read several cases where the courts recite the same test or standard for causation, you can be confident that you’ve researched causation sufficiently.  Additionally, if you continue to find the same legal authority despite using different research methods, you’ve probably located the relevant authority.

You should also strive to identify cases that involve similar facts and you should rely only on cases that reach a favorable result. Never rely on a case that, although supporting your recitation of the relevant law, reaches a conclusion that undermines the argument you are making or the remedy you are seeking.

3.    Review the cases in your opponent’s brief

You should review the cases in your adversary’s brief. Doing so will enable you to identify relevant (and likely unfavorable) legal authority that you may have failed to discover in your research. In addition, you should review carefully how your adversary presents relevant case law to ensure that your adversary is not misrepresenting precedent.

4.    Read the briefs submitted by the parties in prior cases that involve the same or similar legal issue

To the extent possible, read the briefs submitted by the parties in prior and relevant cases. In so doing, you may discover additional cases that you did not find in your research or you may simply confirm that you have sufficiently researched a particular legal issue.

5.    Identify the cases cited by courts in prior decisions

You should identify the cases that courts in your jurisdiction have relied upon when deciding the same or similar legal issue. This will facilitate and expedite your research and it will provide you with the specific cases that courts found influential when deciding the issue.

6.    Research the subsequent history of the cases you cite in your brief

Be sure to research the subsequent history, if any, of the cases you rely upon in your brief or at an oral argument. In so doing, you will discover whether there is negative history that impacts the persuasive value of the cases upon which you are relying and whether a case has been overruled.

The above tips are not intended to be exhaustive. However, adhering to these tips will enable you to decide when to stop researching and provide you with the assurance that you’re prepared to draft an excellent brief or deliver a persuasive oral argument.

February 23, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, Law School, Legal Profession, Moot Court, Oral Argument | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Reasonable Sources on Appeal

Many of the legal standards courts apply to appellate issues resolve around the inevitably fuzzy concept of reasonableness. The reasonable person, reasonable expectations of privacy, reasonable observers, reasonably prudent consumers, reasonable suspicion—all of these tests require advocates to conjure some ideal of what reasonable people might do or think in a given factual scenario. And for most advocates, that standard can seem hopelessly inchoate.

One problem is determining the sources of a “reasonable” standard. Consider the determination of when a person has been “seized” for Fourth Amendment purposes,  and thus the point at which officers must have a requisite level of suspicion to support that seizure. The touchstone test, established in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980), suggests that officers have seized an individual when, “in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” The test leaves unanswered whose opinions count in determining what a reasonable person might believe. Does the test measure what a police officer thinks it reasonable for an average citizen to believe—as it seemingly must if the test is to have any utility guiding day-to-day police activity? Or does the test focus upon what the average citizen believes? If the latter, must the test look to the reasonable beliefs of “average citizens” at the highest level of abstraction, or can it take into account the specific characteristics of the defendant, such as race?

The latter question arose recently in the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Spears, No. 27945 (S.C.), where the Court asked at oral argument whether the black defendant’s race should affect the Court’s evaluation of when a reasonable person no longer felt free to leave and was thus seized by police. The South Carolina Supreme Court noted the Mendenhall court’s view, echoed later by the Seventh Circuit, that although the defendant’s race is “not irrelevant,” it is also not dispositive.[1] The Court also carefully noted the Tenth Circuit’s recent suggestion that race is not a relevant factor in the reasonable person test; that court argued that a racial factor would render the test impossibly complex for officers in the field given the “divergent attitudes towards law enforcement” within racial groups.[2] The South Carolina Supreme Court was able to sidestep the issue by finding it unpreserved due to the defendant’s failure to raise it below. But the issue continues to percolate in other State Supreme Courts.[3]

This argument has echoes in broader theories behind the interpretation of legal texts. Originalist accounts of constitutional interpretation, for instance, set their sights on constraining judicial discretion by assuring that would-be activist judges rule according to the law rather than their policy preferences. But the proper sources for originalist interpretation remain unclear. Are the pre-enactment writings of the text’s authors relevant as part of a narrower effort to find the original intent behind the document? What about dictionaries or legal treatises available before (or after) enactment that might shed light upon the popularly understood meanings of a text? And should the interpretive methods taken today echo the interpretive methods that the lawyers or judges of the time of the enactment might have relied upon?

Neither the narrower question of interpreting a specific issue of reasonable beliefs, nor the broader question of interpreting the relevant sources of original intent or meaning, has a clear answer that makes appellate advocates’ jobs easy. But advocates should not resign themselves to guesswork. Definite answers may be impossible in either project. Yet the effort to use all available methods to guide decision-makers can still lend clarity to an apparently insoluble legal inquiry.  Though it is hard to say who has the better of the arguments about the sources and scope of inquiry, it may nonetheless be an argument worth having. Appellate advocates should strive to understand the problems of source in the fuzzy standards they may need to deploy in advocacy, then do their best to resolve the problems by choosing sources in a logical, up-front manner. Those with the most candid and convincing accounts are likely to find success on appeal.

 

[1] United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 558 (1980); United States v. Smith, 794 F.3d 681, 688 (7th Cir. 2015).

[2] United States v. Easley, 911 F.3d 1074, 1082 (10th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 2019 WL 1886117 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2019).

[3] See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Evelyn, No. SJC-12808 (Mass.).

February 18, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, Moot Court, Oral Argument, State Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, February 16, 2020

Resolving the Tension Between Religious Liberty and Equality

In Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court confronted the issue of whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment permits a business owner to refuse service to individuals – in violation of a state anti-discrimination statute – if providing such service would violate the business owner’s religious beliefs.[1] By way of background, the Petitioner, a small business owner in Colorado, refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because doing so would have violated the business owner’s religious beliefs.[2] The Respondent, Colorado Civil Rights Commission, later held that the business owner’s refusal to serve the same-sex couple violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. In so holding, the Commission rejected the Petitioner’s religious liberty claim.

Unquestionably, Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. implicated the tension between liberty (i.e., permitting individuals to freely exercise their religious beliefs) and equality (i.e., the statutory and, in some situations, constitutional right to freedom from discrimination), and underscored the difficulty in balancing these competing interests. Indeed, how should this tension be resolved and what standard or criteria should be adopted to guide lower courts in future cases?

In its decision, the Court did not answer these questions. Instead, the Court issued a narrow decision in which it held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s decision was procedurally unfair because the Commission displayed impermissible hostility toward religion during the hearing.[3] Thus, the underlying legal issue remains unresolved, although it will likely only be a matter of time before the Court again confronts this question.

The purpose of the Free Exercise Clause, and the Court’s jurisprudence, has established several principles that may help to address the question presented in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. and guide lower courts in future cases.[4] To begin with, a core purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to ensure that individuals can freely exercise their religious beliefs without undue interference, and absent coercion or fear of reprisal. Indeed, the right to religious freedom is essential to safeguarding individual liberty. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated in City of Boerne v. Flores, “[g]iven centrality of freedom of speech and religion to the American concept of personal liberty, it is altogether reasonable to conclude that both should be treated with the highest degree of respect.”[5]

Importantly, however, the right to religious freedom is not absolute. In limited circumstances, laws infringing on religious liberty will be upheld if they further compelling government interests, are narrowly tailored, and constitute the least restrictive means of achieving the stated interests.[6] The Court’s jurisprudence has established several principles that clarify the extent to which the government may restrict religious liberty.

First, the Court distinguishes between religious beliefs and practices, the latter of which is subject to restriction. As the Court held in Reynolds v. United States, “[l]aws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.”[7]

Second, any law that coerces individuals into acting contrary to their beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause. In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, the Court emphasized that states “may make it more difficult to practice certain religions,” provide that state laws “have no tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs do.”[8]

Third, states may not enact laws that target specific religions or religious practices. For example, in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, the Court invalidated a law banning the ritual sacrifice of animals because the record indicated that the law was aimed at suppressing core aspects of a worship service conducted by the Santeria religion.[9] As Justice Anthony Kennedy explained, states “may not devise mechanisms, overt or disguised, designed to persecute or oppress a religion or its practices.”[10]

Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, in Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that generally applicable laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause if they only incidentally burden religious practices.[11] Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that “[i]t is a permissible reading of the text … to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion … is not the object … but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.”[12] The Court’s holding in Smith overruled its prior decision in Sherbert v. Verner, where the Court held that individuals may seek exemptions from laws that infringe on their religious freedom.[13]

In response to Smith, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states that any law resulting in a “substantial burden” on religious practices violates the Free Exercise Clause unless it furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.[14] However, in City of Boerne, the Court held that the Act does not apply to the states.[15] Thus, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Act was not relevant to the Court’s decision.

Ultimately, it is difficult to predict how the Court will rule when, in all likelihood, it is confronted with this or a very similar issue in the future. In Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd., Justice Kennedy suggested that “while … religious and philosophical objections are protected … such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”[16] However, Justice Kennedy retired from the Court in 2018 and it is by no means certain that his replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, or the majority of justices, would agree with this proposition.

If the Court does decide this issue in the future, Smith will be highly relevant. Specifically, the justices will likely address whether Smith should be overruled or modified. If the justices decline to overrule Smith, they will probably consider whether the law at issue only incidentally burdens religious liberty or is sufficiently burdensome that it violates the Free Exercise Clause. Additionally, the Court will likely examine whether the law coerces individuals into violating their religious beliefs or impermissibly targets specific religious practices.

As stated above, it is difficult to predict how the Court will rule. Whatever the result, the Court will hopefully adopt a workable standard that clarifies the appropriate balance between liberty and equality, and that effectively guides lower courts, thus avoiding confusion regarding how these interests are balanced in future cases. However, given the fact-specific nature of cases in this area, the Court’s desire to maintain institutional legitimacy, and its understandable reticence to issue broad and sweeping decisions, the Court will most likely issue a narrow ruling that leaves to the lower courts the task of clarifying and developing the law in future cases.

[1] 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2017).

[2] See id.

[3] See id. (Specifically, the Court highlighted the following language as evidence of the Commission’s hostility toward religion: “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others”). 

[4] U.S. Const., Amend. I (providing in relevant part that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise [of] religion”).

[5] 521 U.S. 507, 564-65 (1997).

[6] See id. at 555 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (“[T]he right to free exercise was viewed as generally superior to ordinary legislation, to be overridden only when necessary to secure important government purposes”).

[7] 98 U.S. 145, 166 (1878).

[8] 485 U.S. 439 (1988).

[9] 508 U.S. 520 (1993).

[10] Id. at 547.

[11] 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

[12] Id. at 878.

[13] 374 U.S. 398 (1963).

[14] 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a)(2012).

[15] 521 U.S. 507.

[16] 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2017).

February 16, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Justice, Appellate Practice, Current Affairs, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Profession, Religion, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, February 14, 2020

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, February 14, 2020

6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d274d5bd970c-pi (960×720)

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 a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News:

  • Texas has petitioned the Supreme Court to declare a California interstate travel-ban unconstitutional. The travel ban prohibits state-funded travel to states that fail to provide sufficient protections for LGBTQ people. Texas was added to the list of banned states in 2017 because of a Texas law allowing foster care agencies to use sincerely held religious beliefs as a basis to deny placements to gay couples. Texas argues that the ban violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. See the State of Texas filing. Reports are available from The Texas Tribune and Fox News and by Josh Blackman at The Volokh Conspiracy.

  • The Supreme Court issued a memorandum formalizing some previously unwritten procedural  rules.  This memorandum discusses rules on scheduling private conferences and deadlines for petitions for certiorari.  Bloomberg Law has this report on the memorandum.  

  • Adam Feldman has posted “About this Term: OT 2019” at his Empirical SCOTUS blog.

  • In Supreme Court historical news, Christopher Brooks wrote an online essay about the first black man allowed to argue before the Supreme Court. And the Harvard Law School Library has released some of the papers of Justice Antonin Scalia. Harvard Law Today reported here.

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News:

  • The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit threw out the emoluments claim against the president brought by 215 members of Congress. The DC Circuit applied Supreme Court precedent from House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (2019) and Raines v. Byrd (1997), holding that “’individual members’ of the Congress ‘lack standing to assert the institutional interests of a legislature.’” The order reversed a lower court holding that the members had standing. The order is here. The many reports on this ruling include those from The New York Times , The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Hill, and Politico.  

  • The Third Circuit ruled in favor of Philadelphia, finding that the city can prohibit an employer's asking an applicant about salary history. The ruling was welcomed by wage-equity proponents, who claim the law could reduce gender- and race-based wage discrimination.  See reports from the National Law Review and the Philadelphia Inquirer and an essay about the equal pay implications by Professor Joanna L. Grossman. The ruling is here.

  • After ruling that Arizona’s “ballot harvesting” law discriminates against minority voters (see The Weekly Round Up, January 31), the Ninth Circuit granted Arizona’s request to stay the ruling so that Arizona may seek Supreme Court review. The stay means that the law will remain in effect at least through the presidential primary in March. See report in the Arizona Daily Star and AP News.  

  • The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit that argued that an Oregon school district policy violated the Constitution and civil rights law by allowing a transgender student to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. The court found that the policy did not violate the rights to cisgender students or their parents and dismissed the case. See reports from KATU News, Bloomberg (subscription required), and the ACLU.  The ruling is here.

  • Brooklyn Federal Judge Jack Weinstein, the longest-serving federal judge in the country, has retired after a 53-year career.  See The New York Daily News report.

 

February 14, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, February 2, 2020

Don’t Make These Mistakes When Writing An Appellate Brief

When drafting an appellate brief, your goal should be to produce a well-written document that maximizes the persuasive value of your arguments. In so doing, be sure to avoid the following mistakes.

1.    You fail to follow the local court rules

The local court rules typically contain requirements regarding, among other things, the cover of your brief, the word count, spacing, font size, and font type. Failing to follow the local court rules demonstrates a lack of diligence and respect for the court, and undermines the credibility of your arguments.

2.    You seek a remedy that is outside of the court’s authority

When drafting your arguments, do not seek a remedy that the court is not authorized to provide (or include information that is not included in the record below).

Consider this example. You represent a state that recently enacted a statute outlawing all abortions and the American Civil Liberties Union challenges the statute’s constitutionality. A district court holds that the statute violates the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses a right, in some instances, to terminate a pregnancy.

You decide to appeal the court’s ruling and, in your brief, you argue that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, that the appellate court should overrule Roe, and that the statute should be upheld. However, the appellate court lacks the authority to overturn precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court and, as such, your argument will be rejected.

Additionally, you should not make arguments based on facts that are not included in the record below or that were not preserved in the lower court.

3.    You overstate the relevance of precedent

Although it is vital to address favorable and unfavorable precedent in your brief, you should never overstate the relevance of favorable precedent. Specifically, do not represent that the facts of a prior case are “strikingly similar” if they are not and do not mischaracterize a prior holding to provide support for your position. The court (and your adversary) will almost certainly notice this error and your credibility, along with your client’s chances of success, will diminish substantially.

Instead, you should explain why precedent, although distinguishable, nonetheless supports the remedy you seek.

4.    You are not direct with the court

Appellate judges are extremely busy and read thousands of briefs. Thus, make sure that you present the legal issues and relevant arguments in a direct, understandable, and honest manner. Specifically, at the beginning of your brief, be sure to do the following:

  • Identify the errors in the lower court’s decision
  • State the remedy that you would like the court to provide
  • Explain why you are entitled to this remedy
  • Briefly provide the facts and relevant law that support your position

If an appellate court struggles to identify the relevant facts and arguments in your brief, the judges will not view you – or your arguments – favorably.

5.    You do not consider the relevant standard of review

Appellate courts decide cases using specific standards of review. For example, appellate courts apply the “abuse of discretion” standard when reviewing factual issues, in which the courts defer substantially to the lower court’s findings. When reviewing legal questions, however, appellate courts apply the “de novo” standard of review, in which the courts give no deference to the lower court’s findings.

Thus, your arguments should be drafted in light of the applicable standard of review, and you should explain in detail and with specificity why your arguments, under the relevant standard, support the relief you seek.

6.    You do not organize your brief effectively

Your goal should be to draft a brief that is readable, understandable, and easy to follow. A well-organized brief typically includes the following:

  • Headings and subheadings that are rarely, if ever, longer than one sentence
  • A roadmap at the beginning of the brief, in which you outline your arguments and state the order in which they will be presented
  • Paragraphs that only discuss a single point or issue and that always begin with a topic sentence

If your brief is not organized effectively, you will diminish the persuasive value of your arguments (and you will probably annoy the judges).

7.    You file an unnecessarily lengthy brief

Given that appellate judges are very busy and read thousands of briefs, you should make sure that your brief is as concise as possible. Unnecessarily lengthy briefs will likely annoy the judges, distract the judges from the substance of your arguments, and reduce the persuasive value of your brief. Thus, when drafting your brief, be sure to omit excess words, unnecessary facts, and irrelevant legal arguments.

Simply put, less is often more.

8.    You make basic writing or stylistic errors

Your brief should not contain errors that cast doubt on the quality of your writing or your competence as an attorney. For example, do not:

  • Use over-the-top language (e.g., don’t say “The court’s decision in the prior case made no sense and was utterly devoid of even the semblance of reasoned legal analysis,” or “The defendant’s arguments are ridiculous and not even worthy of a response”)
  • Use block quotes unless absolutely necessary
  • Include overly long paragraphs
  • Repeat arguments
  • Use complex or esoteric words

Ultimately, to ensure that your brief is of the highest quality – and avoids these mistakes – be sure to rewrite and edit your brief, and proofread it on paper.

February 2, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, Law School, Legal Profession, Legal Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, January 31, 2020

6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d274d5bd970c-pi (960×720)

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 a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News:

  • This week, the Supreme Court granted, without much explanation, the petition to stay an injunction that had prevented the implementation of the Justice Department’s income-based restrictions on immigration. The ruling allows the administration, in the consideration of green card applications, to base decisions on whether the applicant is likely to need public assistance, including public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers. The bulk of the opinion is Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, which focuses on “[t]he real problem here” described as “the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them.” See reports in New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press.

  • A documentary on Clarence Thomas is being screened across the country this month. “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words” is reviewed and discussed in The Washington Post and The National Review. A trailer is available on YouTube.

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News:

  • The Ninth Circuit ruled this week that Arizona’s “ballet harvesting” law discriminates against minority voters. The court reversed a lower court’s findings in favor of Arizona on all counts and stated that Arizona’s laws “have a discriminatory impact on American Indian, Hispanic, and African American voters in Arizona” and that the laws were “enacted with discriminatory intent.” See decision here. See reports by The Arizona Republic, The Associate Press, The Hill, and Bloomberg Law

  • Also from the Ninth Circuit, the court will permit the malicious prosecution suit against Fairbanks, Alaska, by the four men who spent eighteen years in prison for a murder they didn’t commit. The convictions of the “Fairbanks 4” were thrown out when another man confessed to the murder.  See the Courthouse News Service report and the opinion

  • The Eighth Circuit upheld an injunction blocking an Arkansas campaign contribution law. The court ruled that the law, which prohibits contributions to a campaign until two years before election day, is likely unconstitutional.  The decision is here. See reports from Bloomberg Law (requires subscription) and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

  • The DC Circuit reversed the dismissal of a First Amendment challenge to “FOSTA,” an anti-sex trafficking bill. The dismissal was based on subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that the petitioners lacked standing.  The DC Circuit decision reversed and remanded, finding that at least two petitioners had established standing. See article here.  

  • A Sixth Circuit ruling will permit an expelled med-school student to sue for defamation. The student alleges that her professor fabricated a test-cheating story after she rebuffed his advances. See decision and report from Bloomberg Law.

Appellate Practice Advice

A recent Twitter question prompted a thread providing advice for appellate advocacy “newbies.” The thread included a link to a useful 2016 post by Steven Klepper on building an appellate practice.

February 1, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Preserving Evidence for the Record on Appeal

    The record on appeal includes “original papers and exhibits filed in the district court,” a “transcript of the proceedings” from the district court, and a “certified copy of the docket entries.”1 Appellate courts across the country have similar rules. The trial lawyer works hard to present evidence to support the client’s case. The lawyer also works hard to create and present effective demonstrative evidence. Charts printed on large boards may be used to display data and other information supporting witness testimony. Physical models may represent a forest or the seabed and be used by an expert to explain testimony about run off or contamination. And more and more often, in place of these physical charts and models, electronic presentations may be used to demonstrate this information. A witness may testify while reviewing a video of a surgery or other procedure. Models may be shown electronically, the advantage being that the models can be quickly modified or added to as a person is testifying to demonstrate the testimony. These are all effective ways of delivering information to the jury and the court.
    One of the challenges for the lawyer after trying a case with demonstrative evidence includes ensuring that these exhibits, essential to the case at trial, are accessible in forms such that they can be easily transferred to and reviewed by an appellate court, should there be an appeal. Appellate courts prefer to review information in electronic form or paper form; bulky exhibits will not ordinarily be part of the appellate court’s review.2 Thus, the trial lawyer should consider photographing bulky exhibits and entering such photographs into the record so that they can be considered by the appellate court. Information presented electronically should also be included in the record, either by printing and introducing the information in its paper form or by ensuring that the electronic version is preserved either on a flash drive or in an electronic record or transcript created by the court reporter. If the electronic exhibits are manipulated or otherwise changed as part of the testimony, the lawyer must be sure that all versions of what is presented are captured for the record.
    As technology evolves, lawyers need to adapt to ensure that their exhibits are in forms and on media that will be accessible to the appellate courts. Lawyers must also ensure that all exhibits are properly identified in the record and that the record is clear about which exhibits were entered and not entered into evidence. Lawyers must abide by procedural rules and local court rules regarding these issues, of course. Moreover, they must think and act strategically to guarantee that their exhibits will be considered by the trial and the appellate courts. Lawyers should not rely on court staff to manage this information.

1 Fed. R. App. P. 10(a).

2Id. 11(b)(2).

January 29, 2020 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Profession, Oral Argument, State Appeals Courts, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0)