Bringing Home the Supply Chain

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JONATHAN F. HARRIS

NYU law professors Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan F. Harris describe how the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing the United States to confront the problem of unchecked globalization. Estreicher and Harris argue that once the pandemic subsides, U.S. policymakers should, as a matter of national security, mandate that a minimum percentage of essential supplies be manufactured domestically.

Read More

Unconstitutional Chaos: Abortion in the Time of COVID-19

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, MARY ZIEGLER

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler discuss the abortion bans implemented in several states in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Grossman and Ziegler explain why the bans are constitutional and comment on the connection between the legal challenges to those bans and the broader fight over abortion rights.

Read More

Luwisch v. American Marine Corp.

Docket: 19-30499

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Admiralty & Maritime Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that American Marine was liable for most of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff was working as a seaman for American Marine when he was injured on board a vessel owned by the employer. The court held that American Marine has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s finding of unseaworthiness was clear error; American Marine failed to establish that plaintiff's accident was mostly his own fault where the district court clearly evaluated the evidence and made no inconsistent findings about causation, finding plaintiff 20 percent at fault; American Marine failed to carry its burden of demonstrating clear error in the district court's choice between competing experts; the district court's finding of diminished earning capacity was not clearly erroneous; in regard to the district court's award of past medical expenses because of American Marine's negligence, plaintiff's failure to prove that he was obliged to reimburse his attorneys for his medical expenses is irrelevant; and the district court did not clearly err in crediting plaintiff's testimony about his current condition.

Smith v. Harris County

Docket: 19-20194

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: Carolyn Dineen King

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

After Danarian Hawkins committed suicide while incarcerated in the Harris County Jail, his mother filed suit against the County for compensatory damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the County, holding that plaintiff failed to prove that Hawkins was subjected to intentional discrimination. In this case, Harris County did not intentionally discriminate against Hawkins by failing to remove the towel covering his window or by failing to conduct observation rounds every twenty-five minutes; the non-medical staff at the Harris County Jail did not intentionally discriminate against Hawkins by failing to provide additional accommodations, such as the suicide-prevention measures identified by plaintiff; and the nurse who spoke with Hawkins the night before he died did not intentionally discriminate against Hawkins by failing to refer him to the Mental Health Unit or by failing to implement suicide-prevention measures.

United States v. Holguin-Hernandez

Docket: 18-50386

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not reversibly err in assessing defendant's sentence. The court explained that the twelve-month revocation sentence is within the applicable advisory Guidelines policy statement ranges, and that the district court's order that the revocation sentence run consecutively to the sentence for the new marijuana offense is consistent with USSG 7B1.3(f). The court concluded that nothing inappropriate was considered and the district court's sentence was reasonable.

United States v. Koutsostamatis

Docket: 18-20594

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: Andrew S. Oldham

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order of restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act after defendant was convicted of wire fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from him posing as a hacker and threatening to release sensitive information unless BP paid him a fortune in cryptocurrency. Although the court rejected defendant's contention that BP's efforts did not constitute "participation" in the FBI's investigation, the court agreed with defendant that BP's expenses constitute "other expenses" within the meaning of section 3663A(b)(4) of the statute. Therefore, the court held that the statutory text, usage, and Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018), lead it to conclude that BP's expenses fell outside the ambit of section 3663A(b)(4). Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing.