Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The Supreme Court Considers Whether an Independent Agency with a Single Director Who Can Be Removed Only “For Cause” is Constitutional

RODGER CITRON

Rodger Citron, Associate Dean for Research & Scholarship and Professor of Law at Touro Law, comments on a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument this week that presents the question whether an independent agency with a single director who can be removed only “for cause” violates the separation of powers principle enshrined in the Constitution. Citron notes that the decision to hear the case is unusual in that there is no conflict among the federal appeals courts, but he points out that that the government’s support of the cert. petition and then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent on the issue when it came before the D.C. Circuit likely helped the present case come before the Court.

Read More

Fidrych v. Marriott International, Inc.

Docket: 18-2030

Opinion Date: March 2, 2020

Judge: Traxler

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against Marriott after he was injured in an affiliated hotel in Milan, Italy. After Marriott failed to timely answer, the district court entered an entry of default. Five days after receiving notice of default, Marriott filed a motion to set aside the default, challenging the district court's personal jurisdiction over Marriott. The district court then set aside the default and subsequently granted Marriott's motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that Marriott's contacts with South Carolina were not sufficient to render it "at home" in South Carolina, and thus the requirements for the exercise of contact-based general jurisdiction were not satisfied. Furthermore, the district court properly concluded that Marriott did not consent to the exercise of general jurisdiction when it obtained a Certificate of Authority to conduct business in the state. Finally, the court held that Marriott's case-related contacts with South Carolina were too tenuous and too insubstantial to constitutionally permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Marriott. However, the court vacated the district court's denial of sanctions, remanding the issue for reconsideration.

United States v. Torres-Reyes

Docket: 18-4450

Opinion Date: March 2, 2020

Judge: Richardson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated defendant's 37 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States. The court held that the district court's record failed to assure the court that the sentencing court considered at least two of the grounds for defendant's requested variance from the Guidelines range. In this case, defendant argued that a variance was warranted considering his 1995 convictions over-represented his criminal history and created unwarranted sentence disparities. The court wrote that these non-frivolous arguments for a variance required the district court to make a record indicating that the arguments were addressed. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing.