How to Spot a Nation in Freefall

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies points out that when a nation doesn’t have the money to fix its roads but does give money away to help the rich get richer, that is a sign of a nation in collapse. Margulies describes the shift to neoliberal thinking under Nixon that has produced record levels of economic inequality and explains why the Trump administration’s proposed economic policies would benefit only the rich.

Read More

Hendrick Medical Center v. Azar

Docket: 19-10334

Opinion Date: February 24, 2020

Judge: Carl E. Stewart

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Secretary in an action brought by Hendrick challenging Medicare payments it received for the 2015 federal fiscal year. The court held that the district court did not err by dismissing Hendrick's appeal, because the Board's determination that it did not have jurisdiction over Hendrick's appeal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was correct. In this case, Hendrick received notice via the Federal Register but failed to request correction of its wage data by the published deadline in accordance with the established process under the statute.

Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.

Docket: 18-30652

Opinion Date: February 24, 2020

Judge: Edith H. Jones

Areas of Law: Government Contracts, Personal Injury

Upon reconsideration of the scope of the revised Federal Officer Removal Statute, the en banc court held that Avondale was entitled to remove this negligence case filed by a former Navy machinist because of his exposure to asbestos while the Navy's ship was being repaired at the Avondale shipyard under a federal contract. The en banc court aligned with its sister circuits and relied on the plain language of the Removal Clarification Act of 2011, holding that, to remove under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a), a defendant must show (1) it has asserted a colorable federal defense, (2) it is a "person" within the meaning of the statute, (3) that has acted pursuant to a federal officer's directions, and (4) the charged conduct is connected or associated with an act pursuant to a federal officer's directions. In this case, the pleadings satisfied the "connection" condition of removal. Accordingly, the en banc court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

Ali v. Barr

Docket: 17-60604

Opinion Date: February 24, 2020

Judge: Oldham

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's denial of petitioner's asylum application. The BIA concluded that petitioner's status as a legal permanent resident (LPR) ended his status as an asylee. Petitioner argued that, at the time of his drug convictions, he was both an LPR and an asylee. The court held that petitioner's voluntary and successful adjustment to LPR status ended his status as an asylee. In this case, upon successfully adjusting to LPR status, petitioner lost asylee status and thus to avoid removal, he needed to reapply for asylum before a second IJ. The court also held that the first IJ's decision lacked preclusive effect because the REAL ID Act changed the law.