Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Very Bad News

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

In this second of a two-part series of columns considering the likelihood that President Trump will refuse to leave the White House even if he loses the election, UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes the bad news that Trump and his supporters seem likely to use violence to keep him in office.

Read More

Latest Twist in the Flynn Case Highlights the Danger of Judicial Deference to Trump’s Administration

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on a decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit holding that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan exceeded his power by refusing to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security advisor. Sarat explains the relationship between the judiciary and prosecutors and points out that that judicial deference toward prosecutorial decisions can only be reconciled with constitutional governance if prosecutors respect, and are guided by, canons of integrity and professionalism. Sarat argues that the current leadership of the Justice Department shows utter disdain for such canons.

Read More

Coleman v. Vannoy

Docket: 18-31166

Opinion Date: June 24, 2020

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm. Petitioner alleged that his trial lawyer rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to testimony that supposedly violated the Confrontation Clause. Assuming, without deciding, that counsel's performance was deficient, the court held that counsel's ineffective assistance did not prejudice defendant in light of the ample evidence linking defendant to the offense. Therefore, the state court's application of Strickland v. Washington was not contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Hale v. Metrex Research Corp.

Docket: 18-20640

Opinion Date: June 24, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Personal Injury, Products Liability

Claiming that she suffered injuries when her dentist soaked her dentures in CaviCide disinfecting solution, which is manufactured by Metrex, plaintiff filed suit against Metrex, the dentist, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and others. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings to Metrex on plaintiff's claim that Metrex failed to warn and label its product adequately. The court held that plaintiff's failure to warn claim failed as a matter of law because she admitted in her complaint that CaviCide's label warned against the specific use that allegedly caused her injuries. In this case, plaintiff conceded that the use of CaviCide to disinfect dentures or any surface or instrument that contacts mucous membranes is prohibited by the CaviCide label. Furthermore, plaintiff maintained that her injures were caused by the dentist's failure to follow manufacturer's instructions clearly printed on the label for the proper use of the product.