Federal Law & Legal System – Page 79 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Budget Cuts Haven’t Meant Prosecution Cuts Here, Santelle Says

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:October 19, 2011
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Criminal Law & Process Marquette Law School Milwaukee Public Speakers at Marquette

In case any criminals reading this are hoping to avoid prosecution because budget cuts are reducing the reach of federal prosecutors, their hopes are ill-founded – at least for now, according to James Santelle, the U.S. Attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin.

But down the road and even now in places other than eastern Wisconsin? Cutbacks in federal spending could and sometimes are translating into decisions not to prosecute cases, Santelle said.

Speaking Tuesday at an “On the Issues” session at Eckstein Hall, Santelle told Mike Gousha, the Law School’s distinguished fellow in law and public policy, that the staff he oversees in offices in Milwaukee and Green Bay, has been reduced from about 80 several years ago to about 70 now. More cuts may lie ahead, he said.

But so far, the reduction has been accomplished without affecting decisions on who to prosecute, Santelle said. That hasn’t been true in offices of US Attorneys in some places around the country, where decisions on matters such as “smaller” drug cases or white collar financial crimes are being shaped by whether the office has adequate resources. He said a $1 million bank fraud in some instances may be below the threshold a prosecutor has set for bringing a case to court, given practical limits on how much can get done.

Severability and the Erie Doctrine

Post author:Ryan Scoville
Post published:October 11, 2011
Post category:Federalism Public U.S. Supreme Court

“Severability” doctrine holds that where a statute is partially unconstitutional, a reviewing court can excise the unconstitutional part rather than declare the entire statute invalid, if consistent with legislative intent. The doctrine figures centrally in a broad array of constitutional litigation, including ongoing litigation over the “individual mandate” provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And the doctrine is powerful because the viability of large statutory schemes can hinge entirely on whether an unconstitutional component is severable.

But while important, severability is in many ways perplexing and underexplored. No one has come up with a fully satisfying test for determining when severance is appropriate. And no one, as far as I can tell, has critically examined choice-of-law rules pertaining to the doctrine’s application.

The Extrajudicial Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki

Post author:Christopher Ehrfurth
Post published:October 10, 2011
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation Human Rights International Law & Diplomacy President & Executive Branch Public

On Friday, September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki (Aulaqi), a U.S. citizen and well-known al-Qaeda figure, was targeted and killed during a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. Samir Khan, also a U.S. citizen, was killed in the same attack. Khan was the editor of Inspire, an English-Language al-Qaeda magazine that, among other things, publishes how-to articles designed to help terrorists build bombs for jihadist attacks against Americans. Awlaki was perhaps best known in the U.S. for planning the failed underwear bombing of a commercial airliner over Detroit in 2009 (the alleged bomber’s criminal jury trial is currently underway), and for helping plan the 2009 massacre at Fort Hood.

Al-Awlaki’s assassination continues to draw heavy criticism both in the U.S. and abroad because he is believed to be the first U.S. citizen targeted and killed by the executive branch of the federal government without regard for Fifth Amendment due process. Ron Paul published an op-ed in the New York Daily News expressing his outrage at al-Awlaki’s execution. Paul, in response to what he calls the illegal murder of a U.S. citizen, is calling for President Obama’s impeachment.