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

Automation Support, Inc. v. Humble Design, LLC

Docket: 20-10386

Opinion Date: December 8, 2020

Judge: Gregg Costa

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics

Automation Support filed suit against its former employees and one employee's new company, Humble Design, under the Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA). After a year and a half of litigation in the district court, the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss all claims with prejudice. In the joint stipulation, Defendants Humble Design and Warren Humble reserved the right to seek attorney's fees under the TTLA, which is a "loser pays" law. The magistrate judge awarded the fees. In 2018, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge's decision and remanded for the district court to award appellate attorney's fees. The court also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Automation Support's appeal. The current appeal concerns Automation Support's most recent motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), in which Automation Support again argued that the magistrate judge did not have jurisdiction to award attorney's fees. The magistrate judge denied the motion in March 2020, and this appeal is timely only as to the order denying that Rule 60 motion. Automation Support cannot appeal the underlying judgment that issued years ago. To the extent Automation Support argues that defendants were not prevailing parties, the court has already rejected that argument. The court rejected Automation Support's new contention that the Rule 41 joint dismissal deprived the district court of jurisdiction to later award fees. Because Automation Support has inundated the district court and this court with frivolous filings, and because of its bad-faith refusal to recognize what the court held three years ago, defendants may file a motion with this court for appellate attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. 1927. The court once against affirmed the district court's judgment.

Mendoza-Tarango v. Flores

Docket: 19-10588

Opinion Date: December 8, 2020

Judge: Don R. Willett

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a mandamus action in the district court, seeking an order to compel USCIS officials to travel to federal prison in order to administer the oath of citizenship to him. Plaintiff alleged that USCIS unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed the administration of his oath under section 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim for relief and denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Contrary to defendant's contention, the district court did consider defendant's APA claim before dismissing it. The district court dismissed after determining that his section 706(1) claim could not proceed. The court explained that when plaintiff appears before USCIS officials, they must administer the oath to him. But the manner in which USCIS administers the oath, including where within the United States that administration occurs, is left to the agency's discretion. In this case, plaintiff cannot show a clear right to relief and thus he is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

United States v. Lipscomb

Docket: 18-11168

Opinion Date: December 8, 2020

Judge: Edith Brown Clement

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and vacated the district court's order, directing the district court to reinstate its original judgment. In this case, defendant moved for release under section 2255, based on the Supreme Court's holding in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 597 (2015), that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act's (ACCA) violent felony definition violated due process. The court explained that case law has crystalized in this area and held that defendant's prior robbery convictions designated him an armed career criminal at the time of his sentencing.