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

Younan v. Fleming Distribution Co.

Docket: A157038(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 15, 2020

Judge: Petrou

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Labor & Employment Law

Younan worked for Fleming, 2009-2016. In 2017, he filed a complaint with the Labor Commission, seeking $22,000 in commissions, plus penalties and interest. Fleming asserted to the Labor Commissioner that the complaint should be dismissed because the parties signed an (attached) arbitration agreement. The Commissioner did not dismiss the complaint but Fleming did not file a petition to compel arbitration. A hearing was set for August 2018. In July, Fleming filed an Answer that contained affirmative defenses, including that arbitration was the proper forum. On August 7, Fleming moved to vacate the August 13 hearing and dismiss the complaint because Younan’s employment application and agreement required arbitration, again stating that “[Fleming] is prepared to file a motion with the Superior Court seeking to compel arbitration.” Both parties appeared at the August 13 hearing. Fleming’s motion was denied because Fleming had failed to obtain a stay from the superior court. In December, the Labor Commissioner awarded Younan commissions plus interest and liquidated damages. Fleming filed a notice of appeal; a de novo trial was scheduled for March 2019. In February, Fleming filed an unsuccessful petition to compel arbitration, stay proceedings and vacate the order. The court of appeal affirmed, finding that Fleming waived its right to arbitration by taking steps inconsistent with an intent to invoke arbitration, including delaying its request to the superior court until after a full hearing. Fleming also failed to establish an agreement to arbitrate existed.

People v. Smith

Docket: B298642(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 15, 2020

Judge: Moor

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from a postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 and Senate Bill No. 1437. The statute and SB 1437 provide for vacatur of a defendant's murder conviction and resentencing if the defendant was convicted of felony murder and the defendant (1) was not the actual killer, (2) did not act with the intent to kill, and (3) was not a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties and held that section 1170.95 and Senate Bill 1437 do not unconstitutionally amend section 190. The court also held that the record provided no basis for the trial court's determination that the record on appeal precludes defendant from showing that he was not a major participant in the robbery and did not act with reckless indifference to human life. In this case, the jury's special circumstance finding does not preclude eligibility, and the trial court erred in summarily denying the petition based on its evaluation of facts recited in the record of conviction. The court also held that defendant should have been appointed counsel before the trial court ruled on his petition. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.