A Modest Proposal: A Heartbeat Bill for Those Who Don’t Wear Masks

MARCI A. HAMILTON

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton draws upon a strategy used by anti-abortion advocates in suggesting a way to encourage (or coerce) more people into wearing masks to avoid the spread of COVID-19. Hamilton proposes requiring persons who opt not to wear a mask in public (1) to watch, on a large screen, an adult's beating heart for 30 seconds, and (2) to be read a statement about how their decision unreasonably endangers others.

Read More

Hawes v. Stephens

Docket: 19-40341

Opinion Date: July 9, 2020

Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Texas, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that various employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice violated federal law when they deducted a $100 medical co-payment from his inmate trust account. Plaintiff, who receives regular payments from the VA, claimed that this deduction violated 38 U.S.C. 5301(a) and 31 C.F.R. 212. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in regard to plaintiff's claims arising from the TDCJ defendants' purported violations of section 5301(a). In this case, plaintiff's VA benefits were commingled with transfers from his Altra account and with sizeable deposits by a private individual. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether the medical co-payment was charged against funds that originated from the Department of the Treasury and plaintiff cannot state a claim under Section 5301(a), which protects only payments of federal benefits. The court also affirmed the trial court's assessment of filing fees, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the due process claims.

Bryant v. Gillem

Docket: 19-11284

Opinion Date: July 9, 2020

Judge: Leslie H. Southwick

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to a law enforcement officer in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The officer accidentally discharged the firearm and shot Jonathan Bryant in the shoulder while arresting him after a high speed chase. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting opinion evidence that the shooting was accidental. The court also held that there is no fact dispute that the officer unintentionally kept his firearm in his hand as he sought to restrain Bryant. Therefore, plaintiff failed to show a violation of any Fourth Amendment rights.

United States v. Stewart

Docket: 19-60624

Opinion Date: July 9, 2020

Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2019, defendant moved for resentencing under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), which provided for retroactive application of sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FAIR), which in turn reduced the statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses. Based on United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414, 415 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 285 (2019), the district court calculated defendant's post-FSA sentence using the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of his original conviction. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and held that the district court erred by constraining itself to the 2001 Sentencing Guidelines when calculating defendant's post-FSA sentencing range, thereby denying him the benefit of Amendment 750's change to the marijuana equivalency calculation for crack cocaine—a change compelled by FAIR. Because the only Guidelines change necessary for the relief defendant seeks is Amendment 750, which in relevant part was mandated by FAIR, the court need not and did not decide whether a district court faced with a resentencing motion invoking section 404(b) of the FSA must apply all retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, the court remanded for reconsideration.

Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Docket: 19-60592

Opinion Date: July 9, 2020

Judge: Jacques Loeb Wiener, Jr.

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the Commission's determination that Sanderson violated various regulations of the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The court held that the ALJ's determination that the compressor cutouts and the emergency stops are subject to the mechanical integrity program was not an abuse of discretion or otherwise contrary to law; the ALJ's determination that Sanderson failed to rebut the presumption of exposure to a hazard was not an abuse of discretion or otherwise contrary to law; and the Secretary bore his burden with respect to all elements of a violation regarding Items 5a and 5b.