Burrowing and Boobytraps: How Trump’s Eleventh-Hour Maneuvers Differ From Those of Previous Lame-Duck Presidents—and How They Don’t

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf argues Trump’s actions during his final months are different from those of past presidents, and particularly dangerous. As Dorf explains, Trump is aiming to do damage for its own sake, whereas other lame-duck presidents have at least sought to advance policy aims in pursuit of some conception of the common good.

Read More

In Re: Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation

Docket: 19-2155

Opinion Date: December 8, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Drugs & Biotech, Products Liability

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissal of plaintiffs' products liability claims after precluding, pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the opinions of plaintiffs' expert witnesses as to general causation. The court concluded that, not only was it appropriate for the district court to take a hard look at plaintiffs' experts' reports, the court was required to do so to ensure reliability. Furthermore, plaintiffs' contention that the district court impermissibly focused on plaintiffs' experts' conclusions instead of their methodologies is similarly unavailing. Even assuming that the district court required experts to back their opinions with studies definitely supporting their conclusions, the district court did not err in doing so. Therefore, the district court appropriately undertook a rigorous review of each of plaintiffs' experts, and based on that review reasonably found that the experts' methods were not sufficiently reliable and that their conclusions were not otherwise supported by the scientific community. The court also concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants where no reasonable juror could find that it was more likely than not that general causation had been established based on plaintiffs' admissible evidence. The court was not persuaded that the district court erred in holding that there is a general causation requirement across all states. Furthermore, the court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the district court prevented them from obtaining and presenting evidence of general causation. In this case, plaintiffs failed to explain how admitting portions of the expert reports would have established general causation; the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in excluding differential-diagnosis evidence; and the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in managing discovery.

United States v. Gadsden

Docket: 19-3139

Opinion Date: December 8, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a reduced sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act. While the court agreed with defendant that he was eligible for relief, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion. The court explained that it was permissible for the district court to consider the fact that defendant received a below-Guidelines sentence and to consider the statements the judge made at his resentencing. Furthermore, the district court did not consider these factors to the exclusion of others. Rather, the district court made several other considerations, including defendant's past engagement in violent conduct, his offsetting exemplary conduct while incarcerated, and the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. The court also concluded that a district court is not categorically required to hold a hearing at which the defendant is present before denying a motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404. Therefore, defendant was not entitled to a hearing at which he was present.