Supreme Court Determines That Traditional Stay Continues to Be Available to Aliens Appealing from Removal Orders

As I blogged about previously, in January the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Nken v. Holder, which raised the question of whether the 1996 amendments to judicial review provisions that removed the automatic stay of deportation pending appeal had replaced the automatic stay with a traditional stay standard or a heightened, extremely restrictive standard, one that almost never would allow a stay.

Today, in a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Roberts, the Court announced its decision in favor of the alien, determining that the disputed 1996 statutory provision did not take away the appellate courts’ traditional stay power in appeals pending deportation.

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Determines That Traditional Stay Continues to Be Available to Aliens Appealing from Removal Orders

Beach Reading?

Apparently the news editors at the Los Angeles Times read the Marquette Law Review. That’s at least one possible conclusion one could draw from the juxtaposition of two recently published items.

Dean Kearney is in a unique place to analyze the relationship between the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, having clerked for judges on both courts. Introducing Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s Hallows Lecture one year ago, Dean Kearney noted,

Over the past couple of decades, Judge O’Scannlain has emerged as a leader on the Ninth Circuit. This includes the court’s most important work, its cases, where Judge O’Scannlain plays an unusually important role not only in his own docket but also in the court’s en-banc process. An O’Scannlain dissent from denial of en-banc rehearing frequently gets some attention across the country — in Washington, D.C.

Lo and behold, this past Sunday the Los Angeles Times carried a story highlighting how conservatives on the Ninth Circuit use dissents from denial of en-banc rehearing to send “a signal flare to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Carol Williams’ report gives particular attention to Judge O’Scannlain:

Continue ReadingBeach Reading?

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: What If the Sentencing Judge Thinks the Sentence Doesn’t Matter?

The Seventh Circuit had only one new opinion in a criminal case last week.  In United States v. Smith (No. 08-1477), the defendant received a twenty-year sentence for distributing child pornography.  On appeal, Smith challenged his sentence on various grounds, including (most notably) a truly remarkable colloquy between his lawyer and the sentencing judge, in which the judge indicated that the Bureau of Prisons had the authority to decide how much of Smith’s sentence would actually be served in prison.  If the judge’s comments are taken at face value, then the judge’s understanding of the law was clearly wrong.  (The judge was not referring here to the 15-percent reduction in sentence length available for “good time,” but to an alleged authority to release the defendant at “any time” up to the full twenty years.)  Such a mistake would betray not only a disconcerting ignorance of the way the federal criminal justice system has operated since parole was abolished in the 1980’s — a full 85 percent of the sentence must now be served as a minimum in all cases — but would also raise questions about whether Smith’s sentence was set unnecessarily high.  After all, the judge was apparently operating under the mistaken belief that prison officials could release Smith as soon as he no longer presented a danger to the community — given that premise, it is easy to imagine a judge erring on the side of a more severe sentence.

The Seventh Circuit (per Judge Manion) nonetheless affirmed. 

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: What If the Sentencing Judge Thinks the Sentence Doesn’t Matter?
Newer Posts
Older Posts