Supreme Court Reverses “Bridgegate” Convictions

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on last week’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court reversing the convictions of two New Jersey officials for their role in the so-called “Bridgegate” scandal of 2013. Although the Court made clear that the underlying conduct was dangerous and wrong, its holding reversing the convictions may effectively permit corrupt bullies to continue to exercise political power, due in part to inadequate responses from other political actors.

Read More

City of San Antonio v. Hotels.Com, L.P.

Docket: 19-50701

Opinion Date: May 11, 2020

Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that it was obligated under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 39 to tax in excess of $2 million in appeal bond costs against the City of San Antonio. The court held that this case is properly viewed under Rule 39(a)(3), and the district court was empowered to grant the OTCs' request for appeal bond costs. Where applicable, Rule 39(a)(3) provides that, by default, appeal "costs are taxed against the appellee." The court also held that, because no substantive change in the law has occurred, In re Sioux Ltd., Sec. Litig., No. 87-6167, 1991 WL 182578 (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 1991), remains binding precedent. Therefore, the district court correctly recognized that it lacked discretion to deny or reduce the appeal bond costs to which the OTCs were entitled under Rule 39.

Howard v. Davis

Docket: 19-70018

Opinion Date: May 11, 2020

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to contest the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner sought a COA for the issue of whether his lawyer failed to investigate, develop, and present mitigating evidence of petitioner's life history and mental issues. The court held that petitioner's claims failed to show a debatable issue when they are stacked against counsel's investigative efforts and the bountiful testimony concerning petitioner's mental health. The court stated that the suggestion that counsel should have gone even further—say, by finding evidence of a head injury or by hiring yet another expert—does not show that the district court's conclusion was debatable. The court also held that petitioner's remaining arguments either do not show a debatable issue or are forfeited, and the court affirmed the order denying an evidentiary hearing.