How Not to Criticize the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf responds to three broad-based objections by Republican opponents to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021: (1) that the already-recovering economy doesn’t need stimulus; (2) that many of the Act’s provisions have nothing to do with COVID-19; and (3) that there will be waste, fraud, and abuse. Professor Dorf explains why these objections ring hollow and argues that while the Act is not perfect legislation and will likely face challenges in implementation, it is a much better option than anything Republicans were offering.

Read More

International Technologies Marketing, Inc. v. Verint Systems, Ltd.

Docket: 19-1031

Opinion Date: March 16, 2021

Judge: Richard J. Sullivan

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

A court need not wait until it is defrauded before it may impose monetary sanctions on a party who knowingly prosecutes a frivolous claim in bad faith. That remains true even if the misbehaving litigant made only a single misrepresentation to the court. In this contract dispute, plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of its breach of contract claim and denial of its request for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. Defendant cross-appealed the denial of the district court's motion for sanctions related to plaintiff's misrepresentations to the district court during the litigation. The Second Circuit vacated the district court's order denying sanctions and remanding for further proceedings. The court concluded that the district court misconstrued the court's precedent regarding the court's inherent power to impose sanctions – which makes clear that even a single bad-faith filing may warrant monetary sanctions, regardless of whether that conduct actually misled the court. The court affirmed in all other respects in a separately filed summary order.

United States v. Martinez

Docket: 15-1384

Opinion Date: March 16, 2021

Judge: Gerard E. Lynch

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's 20-year sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to participating in the affairs of a criminal enterprise, specifically, the "MS-13" street gang, through a pattern of racketeering consisting of, among other crimes, murder and a separate count of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant relied on Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015); United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019); and United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019), arguing for the first time on appeal that neither of the charged racketeering offenses are violent crimes and that his firearm conviction is therefore legally invalid. The court concluded that defendant failed to show plain error because Davis's effect on the court's decision in United States v. Ivezaj, 568 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2009), which held that a RICO offense based on two violent racketeering predicates is a violent crime for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 924(c), is unclear. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court specifically considered defendant's effort to cooperate with the authorities and his personal characteristics. Furthermore, the sentence that was imposed was hardly excessive for such a crime, and was in line with defense counsel's request.