The Future of Faithless Electors and the National Popular Vote Compact: Part Two in a Two-Part Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

In this second of a two-part series of columns about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the “faithless elector cases, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar describes some good news that we may glean from those cases. Specifically, Amar points out that states have many ways of reducing elector faithlessness, and he lists three ways in which the Court’s decision paves the way for advances in the National Popular Vote (NPV) Interstate Compact movement.

Read More

Impoverishing Women: Supreme Court Upholds Trump Administration’s Religious and Moral Exemptions to Contraceptive Mandate

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the Trump administration’s religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Grossman provides a brief history of the conflict over the growing politicization of contraception in the United States and argues that the exemptions at issue in this case should never have been promulgated in the first place because they have no support in science or public policy.

Read More

State v. Burden

Docket: 116810

Opinion Date: July 17, 2020

Judge: Marla J. Luckert

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of possession of marijuana and cocaine, holding that the district court did not err in allowing Defendant to exercise her constitutional right of self-representation where the record did not establish that Defendant suffered from a severe mental illness. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court judge used the incorrect standard to determine whether she was competent to represent herself. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, without an indication that Defendant suffered from a severe mental illness, there was no basis to conclude that the district court judge abused his discretion when he allowed Defendant to waive her right to counsel and represent herself at trial.

State v. Harris

Docket: 116515

Opinion Date: July 17, 2020

Judge: Stegall

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

The Supreme Court held that the uncertainty in the residual phrase in Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6304 defining a knife as "a dagger, dirk, switchblade, stiletto, straight-edged razor or any other dangerous or deadly cutting instrument of life character" is so great that the law is impermissibly and unconstitutionally vague. Defendant, a convicted felon, was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon stemming from his act of pulling out a pocketknife when he got into an altercation with another man. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by rejecting his vagueness challenge to section 21-6304, which makes it a crime for a convicted felon to possess a knife. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that section 21-6304 invites "varying and unpredictable" enforcement decisions on an "ad hoc and subjective basis" and, therefore, the residual clause in section 21-6304 is unconstitutionally vague.

State v. Harrison

Docket: 116670

Opinion Date: July 17, 2020

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as right for the wrong reason the judgment of the court of appeals holding that harmless constitutional error occurred when the district court responded to a jury question by having court staff deliver a written note to the jury room rather than convening in open court and answering the question in Defendant's presence, holding that no constitutional error occurred. Specifically, the court of appeals held that the district court violated Defendant's constitutional right to be present at a critical stage in the proceedings by responding in writing to the jury rather than giving the answer with Defendant present in the open court but that the error was harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3420(d) gave the district court discretion to deliver a written response to the jury room without having Defendant present; and (2) no constitutional error occurred in this case.

State v. Hill

Docket: 119359

Opinion Date: July 17, 2020

Judge: Ward

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court denying Defendant's pro se motion styled as a "Motion to Set Aside a Void Judgment under Due Process of Law and K.S.A. 22-3210," holding that the trial court correctly analyzed the motion as a motion to withdraw plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210 and did not err in denying the motion as untimely. In 2000, Defendant pleaded guilty to premeditated first-degree murder and other crimes. In 2017, Defendant filed the motion that was the subject of this appeal. The trial court construed Defendant's motion as one to withdraw his plea under section 22-3210 and denied it as untimely. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in analyzing his motion as one to withdraw his plea instead of analyzing it as a motion to void his convictions and sentences and that he was denied due process during the plea process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court correctly analyzed the motion as one to withdraw plea; and (2) where Defendant neither asserted nor demonstrated any grounds of excusable neglect, the motion was procedurally barred.