Recommended Legal Writing Reads from Judge Easterbrook

This past October, as a Judicial Intern at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, I had the pleasure of attending an informal, reoccurring brown bag lunch held among the court’s clerks. We gathered in a conference room down the hall from the Dirksen Federal Building’s second-floor cafeteria to hear this session’s guest speaker—Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook—lecture informally on legal writing. The judge shared some of his experiences (e.g., his decision-making process*) and his must-read books for legal writers.

Continue ReadingRecommended Legal Writing Reads from Judge Easterbrook

Encouraging the Working Poor to Save for Retirement

Are you saving enough for retirement?  It can be a struggle even for those of us who do not live paycheck to paycheck.  For the working poor, the challenge must seem truly daunting.  Yet, Social Security payouts average only a little more than the poverty line, and benefits seem far more likely to decline than to increase in the future.  For those on the margins of poverty, putting money aside today may be critical to avoid a financial crisis in old age.

Should government step in to promote retirement savings by the working poor?  Vada Lindsey thinks so.  In a new paper on SSRN, she proposes reforms to the earned income tax credit that would push recipients to put a portion of their tax refunds into retirement savings.

Vada’s proposal has many intricacies, but the core features include an automatic allocation of ten percent of EITC benefits to a retirement plan, IRA, or other investment vehicle, plus a matching contribution from the government for additional savings beyond the automatic ten percent.  EITC recipients could opt out, but the default position would be in favor of savings. 

Continue ReadingEncouraging the Working Poor to Save for Retirement

SCOTUS to Decide Whether Sentencing Judge Can Base Prison Term on Time Needed for Treatment Program

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to resolve a longstanding circuit split on the question of whether a federal sentencing judge may set the length of a prison term based on what the judge believes will be necessary for a defendant to complete a prison-based treatment program.  The case is Tapia v. United States (No. 10-5400).

After being convicted of alien smuggling and bail jumping, Tapia was sentenced to 51 months in prison.  The judge made clear that the sentence was based, at least in part, on what the judge anticipated would be necessary for Tapia to complete a drug treatment program:

I am going to impose a 51-month sentence[:] 46 months [for smuggling] plus five months for the bail jump[.]  [O]ne of the factors that affects this is the need to provide treatment.  In other words, so she is in long enough to get the 500 Hour Drug Program, number one.

The dispute over the permissibility of the judge’s reasoning has its roots in the origins of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.  

Continue ReadingSCOTUS to Decide Whether Sentencing Judge Can Base Prison Term on Time Needed for Treatment Program