Pro-Gun Justices Announce Their Agenda While the Supreme Court Bides It Time on Gun Rights

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court deferring deciding on a Second Amendment issue presented by a New York City law that prohibited gun owners from transporting their guns out of the city. Sarat points out that the issue that divided the Court’s conservative justices in this case was not whether to radically expand the protections of the Second Amendment, but when and how to do so.

Read More

Amawi v. Paxton

Docket: 19-50384

Opinion Date: April 27, 2020

Judge: E. Grady Jolly

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

In 2017, Texas enacted a law that forbids its governmental entities from contracting with companies who engage in economic boycotts of Israel. Plaintiffs, who support the Palestinian side of the conflict, filed two actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court, alleging that requiring "No Boycott of Israel" clauses in Texas government contracts violates the First Amendment. The district court then preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the clauses in all contracts with Texas governmental entities. The Fifth Circuit held that the appeal is moot because, twelve days after the district court's ruling, Texas enacted final legislation that exempts sole proprietors from the "No Boycott of Israel" certification requirement. Because plaintiffs are no longer affected by the legislation, the court held that they lacked a personal stake in the outcome of this litigation. Accordingly, the court vacated the preliminary injunction order and remanded the case to the district court to enter an appropriate judgment dismissing the complaints.

Degan v. Board of Trustees of the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System

Docket: 18-10423

Opinion Date: April 27, 2020

Judge: Catharina Haynes

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Board over changes to their pension fund, alleging that limiting plaintiffs' ability to withdraw from their Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) funds constituted an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and violated article XVI, section 66, of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits reducing or otherwise impairing a person’s accrued service retirement benefits. The Fifth Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Texas, asking (1) whether the method of withdrawing DROP funds is a service retirement benefit protected under Section 66, and (2) whether the Board's decision to change the withdrawal method for plaintiffs' DROP funds violates Section 66. The Supreme Court of Texas held that (1) although plaintiffs' DROP funds are service retirement benefits protected by Section 66, the method of withdrawing DROP funds is not, and (2) the Board's decision to change the withdrawal method of plaintiffs' DROP accounts did not violate Section 66. In this case, the court held that plaintiffs failed to state a takings claim because they do not have a property interest in the method of withdrawing DROP funds, and thus the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' takings claim. Furthermore, the court held that plaintiffs failed to plead a regulatory taking claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Realogy Holdings Corp. v. Jongebloed

Docket: 19-20864

Opinion Date: April 27, 2020

Judge: W. Eugene Davis

Areas of Law: Contracts, Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction enforcing a non-competition agreement between defendant and her former employer Realogy. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion and its decision satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. In this case, the district court properly concluded that Realogy had a substantial likelihood of success regarding the enforceability of its non-competition agreement with defendant under Texas law. The court lifted the stay previously imposed and remanded this matter, instructing the district court to conduct a trial on the permanent injunction as soon as possible and, when rendering its judgment, to reweigh the equities with respect to the term of the injunction in light of the time that has passed during the pendency of this appeal.

United States v. Rodriguez-Pena

Docket: 18-40978

Opinion Date: April 27, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for illegal reentry where the Government conceded a Guidelines calculation error. The court held that the error affected defendant's substantial rights and failure to correct the error would seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing.