Latest 2 Cases: Sun Coast Resources, Inc. v. Conrad (Arbitration & Mediation), United States v. Hinojosa (Criminal Law)

Bringing Home the Supply Chain

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JONATHAN F. HARRIS

NYU law professors Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan F. Harris describe how the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing the United States to confront the problem of unchecked globalization. Estreicher and Harris argue that once the pandemic subsides, U.S. policymakers should, as a matter of national security, mandate that a minimum percentage of essential supplies be manufactured domestically.

Read More

Unconstitutional Chaos: Abortion in the Time of COVID-19

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, MARY ZIEGLER

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler discuss the abortion bans implemented in several states in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Grossman and Ziegler explain why the bans are constitutional and comment on the connection between the legal challenges to those bans and the broader fight over abortion rights.

Read More

Sun Coast Resources, Inc. v. Conrad

Docket: 19-20058

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: James C. Ho

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation

Plaintiff brought an overtime claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against Sun Coast in arbitration on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees. In a clause construction award, the arbitrator determined that the agreement clearly provides for collective actions. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the arbitrator had interpreted the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers. In this case, Sun Coast forfeited its challenge to class arbitrability by not presenting it to the arbitrator at all and then by not presenting it in a timely manner to the district court. Finally, the court rejected Sun Coast's claim that deciding this case without oral argument would be akin to cafeteria injustice. Rather, the court stated that dispensing with oral argument where the panel unanimously agrees it is unnecessary, and where the case for affirmance is so clear, is not cafeteria justice—it is simply justice.

United States v. Hinojosa

Docket: 18-41134

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the substance abuse testing requirement in defendant's term of supervised release. The court held that there was no conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, rejecting defendant's claims to the contrary. The court also held that the substance abuse testing condition related to, among other things, the nature and circumstances of defendant's offense, his personal history and characteristics, and the need to afford adequate deterrence. Therefore, the district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise.