Can a President Who Is Reelected After Being Acquitted in One Impeachment Case be Retried by a Subsequent Senate?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar considers whether a President who has been impeached and acquitted may, if reelected, be retried by a subsequent Senate. Amar acknowledges that it is unclear whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments’ criminal procedural protections apply to impeachment proceedings, but he offers two key reasons that re-litigation of impeachment allegations after presidential reelection would be improper.

Read More

Cadena v. El Paso County

Docket: 18-50765

Opinion Date: January 3, 2020

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff sought review of the district court's dismissal of her claim against the county under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from the conditions of her arrest after she had undergone surgery on her right leg 24 hours beforehand. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment dismissal of the ADA claim and held that a reasonable jury could find that the county intentionally denied her reasonable accommodations. In this case, the county provided plaintiff with crutches, but it denied her other accommodations, such as a wheelchair, a modified food delivery procedure, and various forms of medical care. However, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's section 1983 claim and held that she failed to show that she was subjected to an unconstitutional condition of confinement, or that the medical treatment that she received was so deficient that it amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

McMahon v. Fenves

Dockets: 18-50710, 18-50800

Opinion Date: January 3, 2020

Judge: Edith Brown Clement

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

In these consolidated cases, plaintiffs challenged the removal or relocation of Confederate monuments from a San Antonio park and on the University of Texas's Austin campus. The district courts dismissed plaintiffs' First Amendment claims for lack of standing and then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that plaintiffs have not alleged a particularized injury and therefore lack standing to bring their First Amendment claims. In this case, what plaintiffs seek was only to vindicate their own value preferences, not to redress a First Amendment injury particular to them.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Panhandle Northern Railroad, LLC

Docket: 18-11416

Opinion Date: January 3, 2020

Judge: W. Eugene Davis

Areas of Law: Contracts

PNR appealed the district court's judgment in favor of BNSF in a contract dispute between the two railroad companies. The Fifth Circuit held that the first issue raised by PNR was determinative of the appeal, and that the handling-carrier relationship established by the 1993 Agreement between the parties is terminable at will under Illinois law and that PNR consequently had a right to terminate the relationship unilaterally upon reasonable notice to BNSF. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of PNR.

Universal Truckload, Inc. v. Dalton Logistics, Inc.

Docket: 17-20725

Opinion Date: January 3, 2020

Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod

Areas of Law: Contracts

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse judgment against Universal Truckload following a jury trial, holding that Universal Truckload failed to demonstrate reversible error. The court held that the district court correctly denied the judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) asking the court to reverse the jury's finding that Dalton was entitled to $5.7 million in reliance damages under promissory estoppel; the district court correctly concluded that the $1.9 million breach of contract damages in Universal Truckload's favor should be offset because the debt arose from reliance on Universal Truckload's promise; and the district court correctly determined that neither H&P nor Hess was liable for the shipping charges Universal Truckload incurred.

United States v. Foley

Docket: 19-20129

Opinion Date: January 3, 2020

Judge: Jacques Loeb Wiener, Jr.

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

A district court errs when it relies on a bare allegation of a new law violation contained in a revocation petition unless the allegation is supported by evidence adduced at the revocation hearing or contains other indicia of reliability, such as the factual underpinnings of the conduct giving rise to the arrest. The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 24 month sentence for violating a condition of his supervised release. The court held that the district court erred because it gave significant weight to the bare allegations contained in the revocation petition regarding defendant's arrest on the assault and possession charges and because this impermissible factor was a dominant factor in its decision. However, the court ultimately affirmed the sentence because the error was not clear under existing law.