Professor Esenberg on Crawford and the Scope of Employee Protections From Retaliation

Rick Esenberg has a new podcast on the Federalist Society website, in which he comments on Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.  Crawford, currently pending before the United States Supreme Court, deals with the scope of the antiretaliation provisions of Title VII.  Rick’s podcast provides a succinct and helpful summary and assessment of the facts and arguments in the case.

Continue ReadingProfessor Esenberg on Crawford and the Scope of Employee Protections From Retaliation

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: Machine Guns and Cocaine (And What Thanksgiving Is Complete Without Those?)

The Seventh Circuit had three new opinions in criminal cases in this holiday-shortened work week, with the government winning on all of the major issues in each appeal. 

In the first, United States v. Carmel (No. 07-3906), the Seventh Circuit (per Judge Manion) affirmed the defendant’s conviction for possessing an unregistered machine gun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861.  In addition to raising some case-specific issues relating to a search warrant, the defendant also argued that § 5861 was invalid in light of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which criminalizes possession of machine guns.  In essence, Carmel argued that § 5861, which punishes people for not registering their machine guns, makes no sense when § 922(o) effectively precludes registration.  The Tenth Circuit bought this argument in United States v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 (10th Cir. 1992), but it was subsequently rejected in seven other circuits.  And now the Seventh Circuit makes eight.  It’s not clear to me, though, why the government would ever charge a defendant like Carmel under § 5861 when § 922(o) is also applicable and carries the same maximum penalty — why not render the Dalton issue moot by using § 922(o) exclusively in these cases?

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: Machine Guns and Cocaine (And What Thanksgiving Is Complete Without Those?)

“The Power That I Have On You Is To Spare You”

While instant messaging a high school friend yesterday, she mentioned that she had just seen the final episode of The West Wing on DVD (in which outgoing president Josiah Bartlett pardons ex-Director of Communications Toby Ziegler from a conviction for leaking national security secrets to The Washington Post), and then linked me to a recent Slate article handicapping President Bush’s potential pardons, while commenting that “maybe if Bush was more like Bartlett, he wouldn’t have to pardon so many of his cronies.” I commented that President Clinton (and most other presidents) have done the same thing, which caused her to rephrase her statement by replacing “Bush” with “all the real presidents.”

I know: there are any number of things lame duck presidents can do that should probably be reviewed and reconsidered before we get to presidential pardons. I also understand that the pardon is a valuable tool that allows the executive branch to swiftly undo so-called “travesties of law,” setting free the wrongly convicted. Yet the Slate article got me thinking about whether it isn’t worth considering a check on this particular executive power sometime soon, both on a state and federal level (though the misuse tends to be more egregious on the federal level).

Continue Reading“The Power That I Have On You Is To Spare You”