Latest 3 Cases: Missouri Coalition for Environment v. State (Constitutional Law), Mitchell v. Phillips (Criminal Law), Woods v. Missouri ...

The Real Insidious Part of Dershowitz’s Impeachment Defense

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker discuss Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz’s explanation of why he stands (virtually) alone in his views on impeachment—that all the scholars who disagree with him are biased partisans. Amar and Caminker explain why this claim is so insidious, with effects lasting well beyond the span of the current presidency.

Read More

Missouri Coalition for Environment v. State

Docket: SC97913

Opinion Date: February 4, 2020

Judge: Laura Denvir Stith

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the State on the petition for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by Thomas Sager and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment (collectively, the Coalition) claiming Senate Bill No. 35 (SB 35), now codified at Mo. Rev. Stat. 34.030, violates the Missouri Constitution, holding that summary judgment was properly granted. In the petition, the Coalition claimed, among other things, that SB 35 violated the single-subject and clear-title requirements in Mo. Const. art. III, 23, that the bill's original purpose changed prior to final passage in violation of the original-purpose requirement of article III, section 21, that SB 35 implicitly amended other laws governing the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and that the full text of those others laws should have been set out in the final bill pursuant to article III, section 28. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the SB 35 did not violate the state constitution in any of the ways argued by the Coalition.

Mitchell v. Phillips

Docket: SC97631

Opinion Date: February 4, 2020

Judge: Patricia Breckenridge

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sustaining the chairman of the Missouri board of probation and parole's motion to dismiss Appellant's petition for declaratory judgment in which he sought a declaration of his right to a parole hearing, holding that the repeal of Mo. Rev. Stat. 195.295.3 did not render Appellant parole eligible. In 2013, a jury found Appellant guilty of drug trafficking in the second degree for acts committed in 2009. Defendant was sentenced under section 195.295.3 as a prior drug offender to a term of imprisonment without eligibility for parole. After the general assembly repealed section 195.295 in January 2017, Appellant filed his petition for declaratory judgment arguing he was eligible for parole because the statute that had rendered him parole ineligible had been repealed. The circuit court dismissed the petition, concluding that the repeal of the statute could not be applied retroactively because it would alter Appellant's sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant's parole ineligibility was part of his sentence, the repeal of section 195.295.3 did not render him eligible for parole.

Woods v. Missouri Department of Corrections

Docket: SC97633

Opinion Date: February 4, 2020

Judge: Patricia Breckenridge

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court sustaining Respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting Respondent a hearing on his single-count petition for declaratory judgment claiming his parole eligibility should no longer be governed by Mo. Rev. Stat. 195.295 and releasing Respondent on parole, holding that the repeal of section 195.295 had no effect on Respondent's parole eligibility. Respondent was found guilty of trafficking drugs in the second degree for acts committed in May 2006. Respondent was sentenced as a prior drug offender to twenty-five years' imprisonment without eligibility for parole under section 195.295. On January 1, 2017, section 195.295 was repealed. At issue was the legal effect section 195.295's repeal had on Respondent's eligibility for parole. The Supreme Court held that, for the reasons set forth in Mitchell v. Jones, __ S.W.3d __, also decided today, Respondent was not eligible for parole.