U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES

In its 2015-2016 term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a number of cases involving federal criminal statutes.  Some of these decisions are complex and only three that are relatively easy to understand are included.  These summaries are from the ACLU with material in [ ] added by blogger.  See also the Caetano case directly below.

 In Ocasio v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1423 (May 2, 2016)(5-3), the Court upheld a police officer’s conviction for conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, ruling that it was unnecessary to show that every member of the conspiracy was capable of satisfying every element of the underlying crime. [This is also the law of conspiracy in most, if not all states and, although there are some prior cases which affirm this requirement, they are probably not still valid]

 

In Taylor v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2074 (June 20, 2016)(7-1), the Court ruled that the provisions of the Hobbs Act, which make it a federal crime to engage in a robbery (or attempt a robbery) that affects interstate commerce allow federal prosecution for the robbery (or attempted robbery) of a drug dealer. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito relied on the Court’s earlier holding in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), that the federal government may prohibit even intrastate activities involving marijuana because of their impact on the national market. By the same reasoning, he concluded, someone who “target[s] a drug dealer” for robbery “necessarily affects or attempts to affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.” Id. at ____.

[The Court said Congress had power to validly pass this statute under its constitutional power to regulated interstate commerce]

In Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272 (June 26, 2016)(6-2), the Court held that a federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence involving the use of force from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), applies to those convictions based on the reckless use of force as well as the intentional use of force. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion. [The Court interpreted the statute to include misdemeanor convictions that involved reckless uses of force, not just intentional uses of force]

 

If you would like the see the opinions in this case, go to the post below and use the link to the opinion in that post at the Supreme Court website (supremecourt.gov).  Then search for the case by the case name/title or the citation (e.g. 136 S.Ct. 2200)

 

U.S. SUPREME COURT OPNION ON SECOND AMENDMENT

As you probably know, the Second Amendment limits the ability of federal and state goverments to control the right to keep and bear arms.  In it's latest term, which ended in June, 2017, the Supreme Court (hereinafter Court, as opposed to 'court') decided just one 2nd Amend. case.  This short summary is from the ACLU.

SECOND AMENDMENT
  In Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (Mar. 21, 2016)(9-0), the "Court summarily ruled that the Second Amendment prohibits a state from categorically banning stun guns. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had held that the Second Amendment did not cover stun guns because they were not in use when the Second Amendment was adopted. That view was quickly rejected by the Court as inconsistent with Heller in a brief per curiam opinion. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a longer concurring opinion emphasizing that the stun gun in this case had been used by the defendant to defend herself against an abusive ex-boyfriend and was thus preferable to the use of a handgun, which would have been permitted under state law."

The official citation for this case is 136 S.Ct. 1027.  See the opinion (including occurrences at)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf


This is a short opinion. This is a per curiam opinion that is a precedent and establishes the law, but is not signed by any particular justice even though it is a unanimous opinion. However, Justices can and do, such as in this case, add concurring opinions which agree with the main opinion, but in which they add their own opinions.  Concurring and dissenting opinions are no the law.


Most U.S. Supreme Court opinions are long and hard to read. The syllabus is very much shorter and much more readable.

HINCKLEY CASE LED TO MAJOR CHANGES IN LAW OF CRIMINAL INSANITY DEFENSE

According to the Wall Street Journal:
"John Hinckley Jr.’s impending release, more than three decades after his attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, serves as a reminder of how a single event can change the face of criminal law."

SHOULD PROSTITUTION BE DECRIMINALIZED, OR LEGALIZED AND REGULATED?

Prostituton is legal only in a few counties in Nevada.  It's a crime everywhere else in the U.S.  This article discusses the debate about the proper legal status of prostution (sex work).

USING NO-FLY AND SIMILAR LISTS TO PROHIBIT GUN SALES VIOLATES DUE PROCESS

This outstanding article provides a good critique of the  no-fly list, proposed legislation, and a readable discussion of the requirements of due process of law.

"In the aftermath of horrific terrorist massacres such as the Orlando nightclub shooting, the natural impulse of the American people is to ask what the government can do to prevent such tragedies. Securing public safety is indeed the government’s most important job; keeping guns away from terrorists has obvious value. But this must be done in a way that complies with the Constitution.

This admonition has animated much of the recent debate about the rules governing National Security Agency surveillance of suspected terrorists. Regrettably, it has not been embraced in the gun control debate unfolding in the aftermath of Orlando.
Yet the Constitution’s due-process protections are the vital safeguard of individual liberty and mitigate against arbitrary government action by setting the procedures the government must observe when it seeks to deprive an individual of a given substantive right." . . ."

Even narrower approaches being bandied about raise similar concerns. For example, an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) would authorize the attorney general to block a firearms sale if the attorney general determined that the buyer was engaged in conduct relating to terrorism. The amendment does provide that a frustrated buyer may bring a lawsuit in federal court to challenge a denial. But its text suggests that this is just window dressing: The attorney general may withhold the evidence underlying the denial from the plaintiff, placing the burden on the plaintiff to prove his innocence by rebutting evidence that he’s never seen.

Those agitating for firearms restrictions now should understand that the precedent they set is a dangerous one that extends far beyond the realm of the Second Amendment. If the government’s say-so is sufficient to block a gun sale — thereby abridging a right enumerated in the Constitution, with little or no ability for redress — what right wouldn’t be at risk of arbitrary deprivation, particularly among the powerless?"

NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS IN CALIFORNIA

California enacts new gun laws.  According to the New York Times:

"

LOS ANGELES — Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday signed legislation that would impose new restrictions on assault weapons and regulate the sale of ammunition in California, cementing the state’s reputation for enacting some of the most stringent gun regulations in the country.

Propelled by the reaction to mass shootings in San Bernardino, in Southern California, and Orlando, Fla., the gun regulations are the latest example of how this state, where the Legislature is under Democratic control, has been able to enact a legislative agenda on issues that have deadlocked Congress.

The legislation in Sacramento was passed with overwhelming Democratic support, and was largely opposed by Republicans who make up a small minority in the Senate and the Assembly.

Even as he signed six measures, Mr. Brown, a moderate Democrat with a history of resistance to some measures of gun control, vetoed five others that he described as overly regulative. Among them was a bill that would have restricted gun purchases to no more than one per person in a 30-day period.

“My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Mr. Brown, who himself owns guns, said in his signing message.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The enactment of the legislation leaves little doubt to the standing of California, which in 1989 became the first state to ban assault weapons, as a leader in gun control at a moment when Congress has rebuffed such efforts and numerous Republican-led states are moving in the other direction. States like Texas, in the name of promoting safety, have in recent years expanded the locations where people can carry concealed weapons, including bars and college campuses.

“This makes California the most anti-gun state in America,” said Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. In a statement, she called the legislation a “a draconian gun control package that turns California’s law-abiding gun owners into second-class citizens.”