What’s at Stake in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue? What the Equal Protection Clause Means in the Context of Classifications Based on Religiosity

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and UC Davis emeritus professor Alan E. Brownstein comment on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that raises the question whether a religiously neutral student-aid program in Montana that affords students the choice of attending religious schools violates the religion clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Amar and Brownstein express no opinion as to whether the courts’ often-expressed concerns about striking down invidiously motivated laws can be effectively overcome, but they contend that jurists who reject invalidating invidiously motivated laws must explain why reasons sufficient in other contexts are not persuasive in this case.

Read More

State v. Hourdeh

Citation: 2020 ME 69

Opinion Date: May 14, 2020

Judge: Andrew M. Mead

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Defendant's deferred disposition and imposing sentence following his earlier guilty plea to trafficking in prison contraband, holding that the court did not err in admitting evidence at the termination hearing that had been suppressed in a separate criminal case. Defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in prison contraband, and the court deferred disposition on that count. Defendant was subsequently indicted on new criminal charges. The court granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from a police officer's search of his pocket on the basis that the search was unconstitutional. The State then dismissed the charges. In the first case, the State moved to terminate Defendant's deferred disposition based on his alleged new criminal conduct. Defendant sought an order continuing suppression of the evidence. The court denied Defendant's motion. The court then found that Defendant had violated the deferred disposition agreement and imposed sentence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because the "sole purpose" of the exclusionary rule was satisfied by the exclusion of the evidence derived from the unlawful search in the dismissed criminal case, the trial court did not err in ruling that the suppressed evidence could be considered in the deferred disposition termination proceeding.

In re Children of Jacob S.

Citation: 2020 ME 68

Opinion Date: May 14, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father and Mother's parental rights to their five children, holding that the district court's findings were sufficient to support the court's ultimate determination that the parents were unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them in a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. On appeal, the parents argued that the efforts of the Department of Health and Human Services to rehabilitate the parents and reunify them with the children were insufficient and that the court erred in determining that the termination of the parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) competent evidence support the court's finding that the Department's efforts were reasonable under the circumstances of this case; and (2) the court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion when it determined that the termination of the parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests.