High (Flying) Crimes: Where is Venue Proper for Crimes Committed on an Airplane in Flight?

Background

Determining proper venue for a trial is essential to guarantee the constitutional right to a fair trial. The determination also helps to avoid imposing undue hardship on that defendant in the course of the already strenuous and expensive litigation process by forcing her to defend in “an environment alien” to her. United States v. Johnson (1944).

With regard to criminal proceedings, all crimes must be prosecuted in the district in which the crimes were allegedly committed. In furtherance of this, the Supreme Court has provided a two-part inquiry to determine in which district the alleged crime was committed and, therefore, in which district venue is proper. “(A) court must initially identify the conduct constituting the offense (the nature of the crime) and then discern the location of the commission of the criminal acts.” United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno (1999).

The Issue

The standard seems simple enough, but what happens when the crime takes place in the sky? Where is venue proper when a crime occurs on an airplane during flight? In applying the Rodriguez-Moreno inquiry to an inflight crime, the first part (nature of the crime) will often be fairly straightforward. However, the second part (location of the commission of the crime) poses more difficulty and presents the legal question at issue.

When an inflight crime is committed, is venue proper in the district over which the airplane was flying when the crime occurred or in the district where the airplane lands after the inflight crime occurred? The answer to this question has serious implications for procedural logistics of prosecuting criminal offenses committed on airplanes as well as concerns of unfairness and undue hardship to criminal defendants accused of committing such crimes.

The Split

Traditionally, courts have deemed venue proper in the district in which the airplane lands, as held by the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Breitweiser (2004) and the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Cope (2012). In their respective decisions, the Eleventh and Tenth Circuits found venue proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. §3237, specifically §3237(a), in which Congress provided the method for ascertaining venue for crimes involving the use of transportation:  “Any offense involving the use of… transportation in interstate or foreign commerce… is a continuing offense and, except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which such commerce… moves.”

The Eleventh Circuit has explained §3237(a) as “a catchall provision designed to prevent a crime which has been committed in transit from escaping punishment for lack of venue… where venue might be difficult to prove.” United States v. McCulley (1982). In Breitweiser, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Breitweiser’s convictions for abusive sexual conduct with a minor and simple assault and rejected his challenge to the district court’s finding of venue. The Court reasoned venue was proper in the Northern District of Georgia (where the plane landed) pursuant to the “catchall” provision of §3237(a) because the continuing offenses involved the use of transportation in interstate commerce and, “[I]t would be difficult if not impossible for the government to prove… exactly which federal district was beneath the plane when Breitweiser committed the crimes.” The Court held, “[T]o establish venue, the government need only show that the crime took place on a form of transportation in interstate commerce.”

In Cope, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Cope’s conviction for operating a commercial airplane while under the influence of alcohol and rejected his challenge to venue in the District of Colorado. The Court found venue proper pursuant to §3237(a), citing Breitweiser for the proposition that one “need only show that the crime took place on a form of transportation in interstate commerce.” Since Cope committed the offense while operating the plane in interstate commerce, venue was proper in any district Cope had traveled “from, through, or into,” which included the District of Colorado where the plane landed.

The Ninth Circuit split from the Eleventh and Tenth Circuits on this issue in United States v. Lozoya (2019), in which the defendant was convicted of inflight simple assault in the Central District of California where the plane landed. In reviewing Lozoya’s conviction and her challenge to venue, the Court found the provisions of §3237(a) to be not applicable to establish venue in that district. Specifically, the Court found the statutory language “[continuing] offenses involving… transportation in interstate or foreign commerce” inapplicable after applying the Rodriguez-Moreno inquiry to the offense.

The Ninth Circuit determined that (1) as to the nature of the assault, Lozoya committed a single, instantaneous offense which, though it “occurred on a plane… did not implicate interstate or foreign commerce,” and (2) partly because of its instantaneous nature, the crime was likely committed only in the district over which the plane was flying at the time of the offense. Accordingly, the Court held venue would be proper only in the district over which the plane was flying when the crime occurred and reversed Lozoya’s conviction on the grounds of improper venue. The Court acknowledged (and Judge Owens’ dissent emphasized) “a creeping absurdity” in mandating the exact district over which an inflight offense occurred to be pinpointed for the purpose of ascertaining venue. Further, both the majority and dissent raised concerns about the feasibility and potential absurdity of this requirement and the unfair hardship it could impose on defendants. However, the Court did not find these concerns sufficient to overcome the Constitution and binding precedent. The Court also suggested, and the dissent expressed hope, that if Congress deemed this an absurd result, it would enact a new statute to ascertain venue for crimes committed at 30,000 feet.

Looking Forward

Judge Owens concluded by urging the Supreme Court to rule on this split or Congress to act to restore the rule finding venue where the plane lands. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court or Congress will take up this issue. In the meantime, frequent fliers, pay close attention if the captain tells you what you’re flying over. You never know when you’ll need venue.

Excessive Entanglement: The Legislative Prayer Doctrine and School Board Meetings

BACKGROUND

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clause was motivated by the Framers’ experience with state-sponsored religious persecution and is thought to serve two purposes: (1) allowing individuals to express themselves according to the dictates of their own conscience; and (2) preventing the government from acting “to make belief — whether theistic or nontheistic, religious or nonreligious — relevant to an individual’s membership” within the political community. Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Chino (9th Cir. 2018).

In light of this purpose, courts express “heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools.” American Humanist Association v. McCarty (5th Cir. 2017). School children are in the process of developing their own beliefs and learning to think for themselves — they are far more susceptible to pressure to conform to social norms and expectations. “The Constitution decrees that religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice,” and therefore religious opining by those with authority over impressionable adolescents in a mandatory secular school has been deemed unacceptable in the eyes of the Supreme Court. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

The relationship between Church and State is not one of total separation, but the Supreme Court has carved out certain exceptions to this Constitutional prohibition. Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014). Here, a resident challenged the practice of the town board’s practice of opening its monthly meetings with a prayer from an invited clergy member. Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Kennedy writes: “Legislative prayer lends gravity to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend petty differences in pursuit of higher purpose and expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society.” The Court affirmed that the Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit the longstanding tradition of legislative prayer. Despite the fact that some audience members were offended by the prayer, the Court found that the primary audience consisted of the board members who governed the town, and therefore, opening the board meeting with a prayer was permissible. The Court did not limit its ruling, however, leading to many questions as to how far this “legislative prayer” doctrine could extend.

THE ISSUE

Is the opening of a public school board meeting with a prayer or invocation permissible as an extension of the “legislative prayer” doctrine, or is it an unconstitutional entanglement of Church and State?

THE SPLIT

The Fifth and Ninth Circuits, in particular, have diverged on the issue of whether school boards should be permitted to invoke religious doctrine in meetings. The difference in opinion stems from an overall uncertainty as to whether school board meetings are viewed more as school-sanctioned events or legislative sessions.

In American Humanist Association v. McCarty (5th Cir. 2017), the AHA challenged the actions of the Birdville Independent School District in having a student speaker deliver an invocation prior to each of its monthly school board meetings. The invocation was given after another student led the Pledge of Allegiance and was normally some sort of prayer. The Fifth Circuit upheld the student-led invocation, arguing that the school board is “more like a legislature than a classroom,” distinguishing it from the public-school setting. The Court based its decision on the “legislative prayer” doctrine from Town of Greece, claiming that the Framers saw this form of prayer as merely a “benign acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.” The Court acknowledged that there may be children in the audience, but maintained that their presence did not transform the legislative nature of the school board meeting.

One year later, the Ninth Circuit split with its sister circuit in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Chino Valley Unified School District (9th Cir. 2018).In this case, the school board permitted a prayer, usually led by a clergy member, to begin its opening sessions. The clergy members were invited from a list of eligible local religious leaders and were permitted to give the invocation on a first-come, first-serve basis. It also became common practice for board members to use these opening invocations as an opportunity to link student, teacher, and district accomplishments to Christianity by citing Bible verses and stressing the need for God in schools and society. The school board had a student representative who attended the meetings, and commonly invited students to highlight their various accomplishments. The Ninth Circuit ruled this opening invocation to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court differentiated the permissible town board meeting in Town of Greece from this case in that the town board meeting was typically attended by mature adults who could express dissent, and had the option to remain or leave at will. “Instead, these prayers typically take place before groups of school children whose attendance is not truly voluntary and whose relationship to school district officials, including the Board, is not one of full parity.” The Court further argued that public schools lack the historical foundation that legislatures have in allowing opening prayer. The court reasoned that the school board should not be permitted to invoke such religious doctrine in their meetings.

LOOKING FORWARD

Until this split is reconciled, school districts will continue to face uncertainty as to how to proceed with such a practice. As of now, it is not clear if the school board meeting is more like a school-sanctioned event or a legislative session, an important distinction in deciding the issue. Due to these important constitutional ramifications, the Supreme Court should intervene and clarify its ruling in Town of Greece. The conflict here is important because it calls into question the protections afforded by the First Amendment, a bedrock of our democratic society. Additionally, this concerns the imperative right of children in a public school to be free from religious indoctrination, allowing them to develop their beliefs and faculties unimpeded by religious pressure from public authority figures.

Right to Refrain: Do Abortion Providers Have a First Amendment Right to Free Speech Under Mandatory Narrated Ultrasound Laws?

Background

The First Amendment prohibits Congress or any other legislative body from enacting laws that abridge freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has distinguished between legislation that regulates the content of speech and legislation that regulates conduct associated with the speech. Content-based speech restrictions are generally presumed to be invalid and must face strict scrutiny before the courts. This requires the government to prove that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest — a very high bar that often results in most content-based speech restrictions failing.

The First Amendment not only guarantees the right to speech, it also guarantees the right to refrain from speech. In Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind (1988), the Supreme Court held that regulations that compel speech are inherently content-based restrictions, as they compel the speaker to speak when they would have otherwise remained silent. As such, regulations that compel speech must also generally face some form of strict or heightened scrutiny before the court.

In conjunction with the recent rise in abortion regulation, multiple states have passed legislation mandating that narrated ultrasounds be performed by physicians prior to abortion procedures. While specifics vary slightly between states, the laws have the same general premise: physicians are required to perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram, and describe the fetus to the patient. Under these laws, the physician must display and describe the ultrasound, even if the patient actively protests. Most states provide an exception only for emergency situations, although exceptions also vary by state. If a physician refuses to perform the ultrasound, he or she may be subject to multiple forms of punishment, including fines, referral to the state medical licensing board, and an inability to perform future abortions.

The Issue

Reproductive rights and other activist groups have recently joined forces to approach these regulations from a non-traditional vantage point. The groups are straying from the traditional approach of invalidating abortion legislation under Roe v. Wade (1973), where the Supreme Court found a Constitutional right to an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the groups have turned their focus to the impact of these regulations on the physicians they are intended to regulate. These activist groups have argued that the mandatory narration laws are unconstitutional not because they prohibit access to abortion, but because they compel physicians to engage in speech from which they otherwise would refrain. This has ultimately led to a single question: what are abortion providers’ First Amendment rights under mandatory narrated ultrasound laws?

The Split

In Stuart v. Camnitz (2014), the Fourth Circuit held that North Carolina’s narrated ultrasound law violated physicians’ First Amendment right to refrain from speaking “beyond the extent permitted for reasonable regulation of the medical profession.” The Court noted that while “professionals may be subject to regulations by the state that restrict their First Amendment freedoms when acting in the course of their professions, professionals do not leave their speech rights at the office door.” The Court held that this regulation of speech and professional conduct warranted heightened intermediate scrutiny, under which the law failed. The Fourth Circuit stated that “while it is true that the words the state puts into the doctor’s mouth are factual, that does not divorce the speech from its moral or ideological implications,” emphasizing the fact that context matters. Because the speech that the state was attempting to compel in this case was so heavily content-specific and did not allow any room for physicians to exercise professional judgment, the Court held that the law unconstitutionally attempted to make physicians the “mouthpiece of the state” to promote their own “clear and conceded” pro-life position.

The Sixth Circuit recently reached the exact opposite conclusion in EMW Women’s Surgical Center P.S.C. v. Beshear (2019). The Court found that Kentucky’s mandatory narrated ultrasound law did not violate physicians’ First Amendment rights, noting that the law simply “requires the disclosure of truthful, non-misleading, and relevant information about an abortion.” Directly addressing the Fourth Circuit’s 2014 decision, the Court stated that “Stuart’s basis for applying heightened scrutiny is called into question by Supreme Court precedent.” The Court argued that the appropriate level of scrutiny was much lower than that called for by the Fourth Circuit and that, under this new lower level of scrutiny, the law survived. Further opposing the argument that the narrated ultrasound laws inappropriately interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, the Court found that the laws did not interfere “any more than other informed-consent laws,” despite the fact that they were regulating the controversial subject of abortion. Countering the Fourth Circuit’s opinion that the compelling of physicians to deliver the state’s message was unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit held that “as a First Amendment matter, there is nothing suspect with a State’s requiring a doctor, before performing an abortion, to make truthful, non-misleading factual disclosures, relevant to informed consent, even if those disclosures relate to unborn life and have the effect of persuading the patient not to have an abortion.”

Looking Forward

 The future of this issue remains uncertain. The Court recently made headlines for accepting an admitting privileges case out of the Fifth Circuit, the first abortion-related case since the addition of conservative Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. However, the Court has generally been hesitant to accept abortion-related cases and has already denied a previous appeal for this issue. In 2014, the Court denied North Carolina officials’ petition to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision. As of September 26, 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari for the Supreme Court to hear its appeal from the Sixth Circuit’s decision. A response is due from the Secretary of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Adam Meier, by the end of October before the Court will begin to consider the petition.

For further reading, see: Sex, Lies, and Ultrasound (2018) by Case Western University School of Law Associate Dean and Professor B. Jessie Hill and Professional Rights Speech (2016) by William & Mary Law School Professor Timothy Zick.

Competing Branches: Judicial Scrutiny and Presidential Commutation of Prison Sentences

Background

Presidential commutation, or reduction, of prison sentences is a well-established power of the executive branch. Article II of the United States Constitution gives the President the “power to grant Reprieves and Pardons” for criminal offenses against the United States. U.S. Const. art. II, §2. However, the implications of such an action on the judiciary’s subsequent ability to grant a writ of habeas corpus are yet to be determined.

A writ of habeas corpus permits an inmate to have his or her case reviewed by a court to determine whether the imprisonment is lawful. If there have been changes in law relevant to the case, or if for any number of reasons, the inmate believes the original sentence may no longer hold, he or she may ask that a court hear the claim. Relatedly, Article III of the Constitution provides an important constraint on the authority of the judiciary, declaring that courts cannot hear a moot issue. In other words, the conflict before the court has to be one that is “live,” or where the parties still have a “cognizable interest in the outcome.”

The Issue

The question, then, is what happens once a prisoner’s sentence has been reduced by presidential commutation?

1.         Does any appeal by the affected inmate for review become moot, divesting the judiciary of its power to grant writs of habeas corpus?

2.         Does the judiciary still have the authority to review that case, or has it been transformed from a judicial sentence to an executive one?

The Split

In recent years, cases before the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have raised these exact questions. The circuit courts are split, with the Fourth Circuit taking a seemingly narrow view of its jurisdictional scope, while the Sixth Circuit applies its authority more broadly.

In United States v. Surratt (2017), the Fourth Circuit held that presidential commutation — in this case, shortening a sentence for crack cocaine possession from life to 20 years — divested the court entirely of its power to review the case. Though the ruling features only a two-sentence opinion, the concurring opinion explains the logical merits. It states, “absent some constitutional infirmity in the commutation order, which is not present here, we may not readjust or rescind what the President, in the exercise of his pardon power, has done.” It asserts that the nature of the sentence has been transformed by the action, and that the prisoner is no longer serving a judicially imposed sentence, but a presidentially commuted one — to interfere with that would be to act outside of the court’s jurisdictional purview. In the court’s view, the inmate had accepted the offer made by the President, which created finality in the decision, thus precluding the court from further intervention.

Deviating from this opinion, in Dennis v. Terris (2019), the Sixth Circuit found that such an exercise of presidential power does not take away from the judiciary’s authority to grant a writ of habeas corpus. The court acknowledged the executive’s power, but refused to accept the position that the “altered sentence becomes an executive sentence in full, free from judicial scrutiny with respect to mistakes the courts may have made.” In this view, there is no overlap between the power exercised by the executive and the authority the court is asked to assert. Here, the question is not whether the commutation should be amended, but rather whether the original sentence itself would hold up under scrutiny and application of modern law. The argument made by this court is that a commutation or pardon by the President does not change the nature of or eliminate the original sentence. Say, for example, an inmate’s sentence is commuted with the added condition that the inmate maintain good behavior. If that condition is not met, the commutation is revoked and the original sentence takes effect once again. The original sentence remains in place all along, “ready to kick into full effect if the recipient violates the conditional cap.” Likewise, the sentence is, all along, subject to be amended by the court system that imposed it. Moreover, the court argues that a commuted sentence is, on principle, not rendered moot. Commutation does not take away any interest the inmate has in seeking relief for the remainder of his or her sentence. If a court were to find the inmate’s sentence unlawful, then the original sentence would simply go away. In other words, the conflict is still “live,” giving the court jurisdiction to revise and reevaluate the legality of its own past decisions.

Looking Forward

The power of a President to shorten or forgive the sentences of prisoners is an exercise in fairness that dates back to the creation of the U.S. Constitution, and has played a role in the criminal justice system ever since. This current split reveals a fundamental difference in how the courts view their roles as part of the judiciary. Whether or not an overlap between branches of government is formed by an executive action is a question of constitutional interpretation that carries serious consequences for how justice will be carried out across the United States in the future.

Deliberate Indifference: Does the Eighth Amendment Guarantee Access to Gender Confirmation Surgery For Transgender Prisoners?

BACKGROUND

The Eighth Amendment explicitly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but what are the parameters of this protection? In Estelle v. Gamble, the Supreme Court expanded the definition to include “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.” This 1976 decision proscribes a form of inhumane treatment that extends beyond physical punishment:

“(D)enial of medical care may result in pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose… The infliction of such unnecessary suffering is inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency as manifested in modern legislation codifying the common law view that “it is but just that the public be required to care for the prisoner, who cannot, by reason of the deprivation of his liberty, care for himself.”

However, it is not the case that every prisoner’s claim for inadequate medical treatment necessarily involves an Eighth Amendment violation. Under Kolisek v. Spencer, to prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) a serious medical need exists, and (2) prison administrators’ acted with deliberate indifference to that need.

THE ISSUE

The aforementioned two-prong test comes into play when deciding whether an inmate can receive treatment for gender dysphoria. According to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, gender dysphoria is defined as “distress that is caused by discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth.” In the recently decided case, Edmo v. Corizon, the Ninth Circuit went on to recognize that, if left untreated, gender dysphoria can lead to “debilitating distress, depression, impairment of function, substance use, self-surgery to alter one’s genitals or secondary sex characteristics, self-injurious behaviors, and even suicide.” Despite this, the question of whether gender dysphoria is a serious medical issue for inmates is not at issue here.

With regard to gender dysphoria, treatment ranges from changes in gender expression to gender confirmation surgery (GCS). The latter is politically controversial, but a growing body of evidence demonstrates that it is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria. The Fifth Circuit, in Gibson v. Collier, expressed concern that transgender prisoners are not guaranteed “the best treatment for gender dysphoria, only that which prevents their medical well-being from dropping below ‘society’s minimum standards of decency.’”

The legal controversy at issue here involves the definition of “adequate treatment,” specifically the standard for “deliberate indifference” to an inmate’s medical need in the context of transgender prisoners. The question becomes whether a transgender inmate’s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment is violated when GCS is denied and substituted with less invasive treatment.

THE SPLIT

The Fifth and Ninth Circuits diverge in their interpretation of the First Circuit’s opinion in Kosilek v. Spencer, which held that Michelle Kosilek, an anatomically male prisoner who identified as female, was not entitled to GCS. The Court reasoned that, although her gender dysphoria was severe, it was unclear whether GCS would provide significantly greater relief than the non-surgical treatment she was already receiving. The prison was found not deliberately indifferent, and the claim was denied.

The Fifth Circuit has interpreted Kosilek as creating a de facto, blanket ban on GCS on the grounds that there exists controversy about whether the procedure is ever medically necessary. In Gibson v. Collier, Vanessa Gibson (who the Fifth Circuit insists on calling Scott Gibson), is a male-to-female transgender inmate who has been presenting as female since the age of fifteen. Despite receiving hormonal therapy from the prison, Vanessa showed signs of depression, attempted to castrate herself, and even attempted suicide three times. The Court, however, held that withholding GCS from her is not “deliberate indifference” because there exists controversy about the efficacy of the procedure, finding that an Eighth Amendment violation did not occur. The Court granted summary judgment against Gibson for failing to provide sufficient evidence of medical indifference, and reaffirmed the prison policy that denied the inmate’s right to be evaluated as a candidate for GCS in the first place.

In contrast, in Edmo v. Corizon, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the Kosilek decision by holding that the medical necessity of GCS must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Adree Edmo had received non-invasive treatment for her gender dysphoria as an inmate in Idaho. Despite these efforts, Edmo continued to suffer from suicidal ideations, depression, and attempts to self-castrate. Citing the district court’s lengthy discussion of the latest research on gender dysphoria and the efficacy of GCS, the Court determined that it was medically necessary for Edmo to receive the surgery. Due to the increased social awareness of transgender healthcare and significant advancement in treatment, the Ninth Circuit held: where an inmate’s health record shows medical necessity in treating gender dysphoria, and prison officials deny such treatment, those officials are in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

LOOKING FORWARD

In concluding his opinion in Gibson, Judge Ho argued that “it cannot be deliberately indifferent to deny in Texas what is controversial in every other state.” It is, however, this exact controversy that highlights the need for certiorari. It is clear that the lack of access to ever evolving and effective treatment causes severe medical harm, as was the case with Michelle, Vanessa, Adree, and several other transgender inmates. This predictable and preventable harm falls well below the “minimum standards of decency” the Eighth Amendment aims to preserve.

Reading the Fifth: Supreme Court Exercises its Right to Remain Silent on What Comprises a “Criminal Case”

BACKGROUND

The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to bear witness against themselves in a criminal case. Courts have struggled with the scope of this protection, particularly regarding what comprises a “criminal case.” Does the term extend to pre-trial proceedings, such as a bail hearing? Has a person’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination been violated if the compelled statement in question is never used in a court of law?

Over the past thirty years, the Supreme Court has never directly resolved the question of what constitutes a “criminal case.” In dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Supreme Court indicated that the Fifth Amendment right was merely a trial right. But later, in Mitchell v. United States (1999) the Supreme Court indicated that the right extended to sentencing hearings.

The question of what comprises a criminal case was more recently addressed in Chavez v. Martinez (2003). In his plurality opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas declared that a statement was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where the individual first hadn’t been charged with a crime and where the individual’s statements had not been used in a criminal case. Thomas further wrote:

“Mere coercion doesn’t violate the self-incrimination clause minus use of compelled statements in a criminal case against the witness…a ‘criminal case’ at the very least requires the initiation of legal proceedings.”

Three other justices disagreed, arguing that self-incrimination is complete the moment a confession is compelled, regardless of whether the statement is used at trial.

After the opinions in Chavez were released, a circuit split developed over the definition of a criminal case under the Fifth Amendment.

THE ISSUE

Does the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination include statements compelled in pre-trial proceedings?

THE SPLIT

The Third, Fourth and Fifth Circuits resolved this question in favor of Justice Thomas’s view, holding that the right against self-incrimination is only a trial right. In Renda v. King (2003), the Third Circuit determined that questioning while in police custody without providing Miranda warnings is not a Fifth Amendment violation if the individual is never charged with a crime and their responses are never used in a trial.

But on the other hand, in Vogt v. City of Hays (2017) the Tenth Circuit resolved this question in favor of a broader reading of the term “criminal case,” allowing the term to include certain pre-trial proceedings. The Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits take a similar view of the right against self-incrimination.

The facts of Vogt are unusual. In Vogt, a police officer for the City of Hays admitted during an interview with a neighboring police department that he had illegally retained a knife obtained during his employment as a police officer. The neighboring police department agreed to hire Vogt on the condition that he report the illegal retention of the knife to the Hays police department. Upon Vogt’s admission, Hays initiated a criminal investigation against him. The charges were dropped, but Vogt sued, claiming that the state violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by inducing him to confess.

The Tenth Circuit in Vogt concluded—after examining the text of the Fifth Amendment and the Founders’ intent—that the right against self-incrimination includes pre-trial proceedings. The court noted that the Fifth Amendment makes no mention of “trial” or “criminal prosecution,” instead using the term “criminal case.” The court pointed to Counselman v. Hitchcock (1892) wherein the government argued that a witness could not invoke the Fifth Amendment in a grand jury proceeding because it was not a “criminal case.” The Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument there, holding that the “criminal case” of the Fifth Amendment is a broader term than the Sixth Amendment’s “criminal prosecution.”

Additionally, to determine the meaning of “criminal case,” the Tenth Circuit consulted the most prominent dictionary of the Framers’ era: purportedly Noah Webster’s An American Dictionary of the English Language. In this dictionary, “case” was defined as “a cause or suit in court.” This definition, where “suit” is understood to be nearly synonymous with “cause,” indicates that the Framers understood the criminal case to encompass more than merely the trial. From these facts, Tenth Circuit concluded that the right against self-incrimination is more than just a trial right.

LOOKING FORWARD

The City of Hays appealed the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Vogt, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 28, 2017. The case was argued before the Court on February 20, 2018; however, whether this split will be resolved by the Vogt appeal is yet to be seen. Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor both noted the case was “odd,” and Justice Breyer even questioned whether the strange and distinguishing facts of Vogt made it an appropriate one for the Court to take. The Supreme Court has the option to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, but it is likely that the Court will publish an opinion resolving this constitutional issue soon.

On a constitutional question of this magnitude, let’s hope the Supreme Court doesn’t choose to plead the Fifth.

Does Pre-Trial Detention Toll a Term of Supervised Release?

Supervised Release

For some people who are convicted of a criminal offense, a sentence can include a term of supervised release (also known as special or mandatory parole). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624, the federal supervised release statute, a term of supervised release begins on the day that a person is released into the custody of a parole officer. The federal supervised release statute also provides that the term of supervised release is tolled during any period where the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a different federal, state, or local crime.

The Issue

Jason Mont began a five-year period of supervised release on March 6, 2012. On June 1, 2016, Mr. Mont was arrested on state charges and held in pre-trial detention until he pleaded guilty in October 2016. In June 2017, Mr. Mont’s supervised release was revoked, and he was ordered to serve an additional 42 months for violating his supervised release. In United States v. Mont (2018), Mr. Mont claimed that the court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release, arguing that his supervised release ended on March 6, 2017 (five years after he was initially released). Following circuit precedent established by United States v. Goins (2008), the Sixth Circuit held that pretrial detention that leads to a conviction counts as time “in connection with a conviction,” as described in the federal statute.

The Split

Several circuits have spoken to whether time served in pretrial detention counts as time “in connection with a conviction” for the purposes of the federal supervised release statute, in addition to the Sixth Circuit’s previous ruling in Goins. The Fourth Circuit in United States v. Ide (2010), the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Molina-Gazca (2009), and the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Johnson (2009) have all held that pretrial detention counts for the purposes of the federal supervised release statute. In contrast, the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Marsh (2016) and the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Morales-Alejo (1999) held that time served in pretrial detention does not qualify.

The Ninth Circuit is the only circuit that has directly addressed the statutory language in the federal supervised release statute:

“A plain reading of this language…suggests that there must be an imprisonment resulting from or otherwise triggered by a criminal conviction. Pretrial detention does not fit this definition, because a person in pretrial detention has not yet been convicted and might never be convicted.”

In Mont, the Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected this interpretation.

Looking Forward

This case has not attracted much attention within the legal community since the Sixth Circuit’s ruling was handed down this past February, but it does have important ramifications for persons whose sentences include a period of supervised release. With six circuits having weighed in on opposite sides of a matter of federal statutory interpretation, the time is ripe for an aggrieved party to petition the Supreme Court for a definite ruling on this issue. Mr. Mont has ninety days from the date of the Sixth Circuit’s judgment to file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court – while this deadline has not passed, it is not yet clear whether he will file a petition. In the alternative, given that this issue arises out of different interpretations of a federal statute, Congress could pass a bill to amend the current statute and clarify whether pretrial detention that leads to a conviction counts as time served in connection with a conviction.

On an Electronic Soapbox: Is a Privately-Operated Public Access Television Channel Subject to the First Amendment?

The Issue

The First Amendment normally only limits and regulates governmental action, not the acts of private entities; therefore, First Amendment violation claims are only viable if they are against a state actor. But when does a private entity become a state actor for First Amendment purposes? Regarding public access television channels, this answer has remained unclear. Public access channels are set aside for public, educational, or governmental purposes and a cable system operator provides them at the request of local government. The Second Circuit recently held in Halleck v. Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. (2018) that a public access television station operated by a non-profit corporation is a public forum and considered a governmental actor for constitutional purposes. In making this determination, the Second Circuit acknowledged that it was in direct contrast with its sister D.C. Circuit’s decision in Alliance for Community Media v. FCC (1995).

The Split

In Halleck, two producers for the Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), a not-for-profit corporation designated as the operator of the public access channel by the Manhattan Borough President, were suspended after they produced content that presented MNN in a negative light. The producers brought a claim against MNN, stating that as a public access channel under municipal control, its employees were subject to First Amendment restrictions. The Second Circuit found in favor of the producers, analogizing a public access channel to “a speaker’s soapbox” and finding support in a concurring opinion written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Justice Ginsburg in Denver Area Educ. Telcoms. Consortium v. FCC (1996).

In Denver Area Educ. Telecoms. Consortium, the plurality opinion did not definitively resolve the classification of such channels as public fora. Instead, two opposing camps each articulated different views. On one side, Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg concluded that:

public fora do not have to be physical gathering places, nor are they limited to property owned by the government. Indeed, in the majority of jurisdictions, title to some of the most traditional of public fora, streets and sidewalks, remains in private hands…Public access channels are analogous; they are public fora even though they operate over property to which the cable operator holds title.

On the opposing side, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, and Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that because the channel was privately owned it could not be a public forum. As neither view held majority support, the issue remained unanswered by the Supreme Court.

In Alliance for Community Media, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a public access channel was not a public forum and, therefore, not subject to First Amendment restrictions. The court differentiated parks and streets—which it classified as examples of public fora—from public access channels because the channels “belong to private cable operators; are managed by them as part of their systems; and are among the products for which operators collect a fee from their subscribers.” In contrast to the reasoning in Halleck, the D.C. Circuit held that although a public access channel “must provide communications facilities to those who desire access for their own purposes,” it is not a public forum “in the First Amendment sense and does not transform the entity’s discretionary carriage decisions into decisions of the government.”

Looking to the Supreme Court for an answer

Labeling a television station as a public forum carries significant consequences for its operators as it limits their ability to restrict content. Therefore, whether courts classify channels as modern versions of a town square—or the equivalent—has direct implications on the programming that can be broadcast to the public. In his plurality opinion in Denver Area Educ. Telecoms. Consortium, Justice Breyer said it would be “premature” to classify public access channels as public fora. (Or to not classify them as such.) However, given that 22 years have elapsed since the Court’s opinion and that a circuit split has subsequently developed, perhaps the Supreme Court would consider the issue appropriately mature enough to return with a clear answer sometime soon.

Sitting or Standing … Injury in Fact after a Data Breach?

The Issue

“If you live in the U.S. and breathe oxygen, there’s a good chance you may be impacted by the latest security breach [Equifax].” –CNN

A battle wages on between creative hackers and information security professionals, each struggling to outpace the other.  Likely, most of us already have had personal or medical information leaked in one of several massive data breaches in recent years, possibly even today with the news coming out that five million Lord and Taylor and Saks Fifth Avenue customers had their information stolen. Until you are hit with identify theft, medical insurance fraud, or some other abuse of your data, your options are only to lock down credit reports and purchase identity theft insurance, then sit back and hope your personal information is not misused.

In the meantime, you are upset, you are worried, but so far it does not seem like the hackers have used your data.  For the sake of this article, we will call you an “Unharmed Victim.”   Do you have standing to sue?

In Fero v. Excellus Health Plan (W.D.N.Y. 2018), hackers gained access to the Excellus’ computer network and the personal identity information (PII) of more than 10.5 million individuals; however, as far as the plaintiffs knew, the hackers had not yet used or misused their stolen data.

The Fero case highlights a wide split among the Circuit courts.  In Fero, a district court found standing for Unharmed Victims of a data breach to sue, relying on the rationale of a recent unpublished Second Circuit case, Whalen v. Michaels Stores (2017)The Fero court cited to similar holdings in several other Circuits which found plaintiffs had standing based on an increased identity theft risk, including Galaria v. Nationwide (6th Cir. 2016), Remijas v Neiman Marcus (7th Cir. 2015), and Attias v. Carefirst (D.C. Cir. 2017).

On the other hand, the Third, Fourth and Eighth circuits in Reilly v. Ceridian Corp. (3rd Cir. 2011), Beck v. McDonald (4th Cir. 2016) and In re: SuperValu Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. (8th Cir. 2017), all declined to find standing in data breach cases wherein hackers had not yet used or misused plaintiffs’ stolen data.

The Standing Requirement

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing by demonstrating three elements: 1) an injury in fact; 2) fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant; and 3) likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

Further to the first element of Lujan, in Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that a plaintiff must allege an injury that is “concrete, particularized, actual or imminent…” and emphasized that a future injury must be “certainly impending,” rather than simply speculative.

In certain circuits, Unharmed Victims’ ability to establish standing by pleading an injury in fact is significantly more challenging than in other circuits.

The Split

The Fero court cites the Sixth, Seventh and D.C. Circuit in finding standing on the basis that an increased identity theft risk is sufficient to state an injury in fact.

Those three Circuit Courts could not find a reason why hackers would break into a database and steal consumers’ private information, if not intending harm. The courts reasoned that the most likely and obvious motivation for hackers was to use plaintiff’s PII nefariously or to sell it to someone who would.  The court in Fero adopted this rationale, especially because the PII stored on the Excellus networks was particularly valuable for committing identity theft and fraud.  “All of these injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs and Class Members are a direct and proximate result of the Excellus data breach and include … the imminent and certain impending injury flowing from fraud and identity theft posed by their PII and PHI being placed in the hands of unknown third parties.”

The Sixth Circuit went a step further by holding that the combination of theft by “ill-intentioned criminals” and the reasonable mitigation costs by the plaintiffs such as purchasing credit reporting services and frequently reviewing bank statements results in an injury in fact. “Where Plaintiffs already know they have lost control of their data, it would be unreasonable to expect plaintiffs to wait for actual misuse…before taking steps to ensure their own personal and financial security.”

On the other side of the split, the Third, Fourth and Eighth circuits have declined to grant standing to plaintiffs whose stolen data was not yet used or misused, saying the mere risk of identity theft is too speculative to constitute an injury, and therefore insufficient to constitute injury in fact.   Specifically, the Fourth Circuit argued against standing because as more and more time passed after the breach, with the plaintiffs still unable to produce evidence of their PII or PHI being misused, the threat of injury became more and more speculative.

The Fourth and Eighth Circuits argued against the mitigation of risk argument put forth by the Sixth Circuit and held that the costs plaintiffs incurred in “protecting themselves against this speculative threat cannot create injury” (8th Cir.)  and “self-imposed harms cannot confer standing.” (4th Cir.)

Notably, the D.C Circuit flatly contradicts the more time, more speculation rationale put forth by the 4th Circuit and found the plaintiffs had standing, even though they had “not suffered any identity theft or other harm in more than three years since the breach.”

Looking Forward

On February 16, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari to review an appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s decision to deny standing in Attias v. CareFirst.

Without Supreme Court guidance, the Sixth, Seventh, and D.C. circuits have now seemingly emerged as the clear forums of choice for data breach class actions.  Conversely, defendant companies will logically seek to consolidate data breach class actions in the Third, Fourth and Eighth Circuits.  There are other Circuits not mentioned in the Fero case that may widen the split on this issue.

Do the due process restrictions on shackling criminal defendants apply equally to jury and non-jury proceedings?

Background

Due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments restricts the use of physical restraints on criminal defendants during a criminal trial. Because shackles are inherently prejudicial, the Supreme Court instructed in Deck v. Morrison (2005) that defendants should only be shackled during trial as a last resort. Shackles interfere with a jury’s ability to make accurate determinations about both guilt and sentencing because they imply to a jury that the defendant is dangerous, and may cause a jury to infer negative attributes about the defendant’s character.

The Court established a rule in Deck that physical restraints that are visible to a jury may only be used after a trial court determination that they are justified by an essential state interest, based on particular concerns in a specific defendant’s trial. For example, a trial court may find that a particular defendant poses such severe security risks that shackling is necessary to protect the occupants of the courtroom. Judges may not impose blanket rules about the use of restraints, and the inquiry must be specific to concerns about the particular defendant. The Deck rule applies to both guilt-determination proceedings and to sentencing proceedings.

The Court builds the rule in Deck v. Morrison from three essential principles:

  • The presumption of a defendant’s innocence until proven guilty. Visible restraints erode the fairness of the criminal proceeding by implying that the defendant is dangerous and tipping the scale in favor of guilt.
  • The defendant’s constitutional right to counsel. Shackles interfere with a defendant’s ability to move freely to communicate with her attorney. Defendants physically struggle to write when they are restricted by shackles, which limits their ability to effectively communicate with counsel during criminal proceedings.
  • The dignity and decorum of the courtroom is necessary to support confidence that the legal system pursues justice as it handles the potential deprivation of liberty. Courtroom dignity requires that defendants are treated respectfully.

The Issue

The Court only addressed jury proceedings in Deck. The Deck holding left lower courts to determine whether a defendant’s due process rights require the same justification for shackles in proceedings without juries.

The Split

The Second Circuit does not require a specific evaluation of the need for restraints in non-jury proceedings. Because juror prejudice is the primary concern for limiting the use of restraints in the courtroom, the Second Circuit examined in United States v. Zuber (1997) whether a concern of prejudice is present when judges rather than juries do the sentencing.

We traditionally assume that judges, unlike juries, are not prejudiced by impermissible factors, …, and we make no exception here. We presume that where, as here, the court defers without further inquiry to the recommendation of the Marshals Service that a defendant be restrained at sentencing, the court will not permit the presence of the restraints to affect its sentencing decision.

Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit held in United States v. Lafond (2015) that the Deck rule against restraints only limits the use of restraints at proceedings with juries.

The Ninth Circuit arrived at a different conclusion in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez (2017). The court extended the Deck rule to non-jury proceedings and clarified that it applies in pretrial, trial, and sentencing proceedings. The Ninth Circuit now requires that, before shackling a criminal defendant in both jury and non-jury proceedings, courts must decide if the security concerns with the particular defendant outweigh the infringement on the defendant’s due process right.

Continuing with the rationale for the Deck rule, the court applied the principle of presuming a defendant’s innocence until proven guilty.

The principle [that defendants are innocent until proven guilty] isn’t limited to juries or trial proceedings. It includes the perception of any person who may walk into a public courtroom, as well as those of the jury, the judge and court personnel. A presumptively innocent defendant has the right to be treated with respect and dignity in a public courtroom, not like a bear on a chain.

Using the third Deck justification, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that dignity and decorum require consistent application of the rule:

Courtrooms are palaces of justice, imbued with a majesty that reflects the gravity of proceedings designed to deprive a person of liberty or even life. A member of the public who wanders into a criminal courtroom must immediately perceive that it is a place where justice is administered with due regard to individuals whom the law presumes to be innocent. That perception cannot prevail if defendants are marched in like convicts on a chain gang. Both the defendant and the public have the right to a dignified, inspiring and open court process. Thus, innocent defendants may not be shackled at any point in the courtroom unless there is an individualized showing of need.

Looking Forward

The Supreme Court recently granted a writ of certiorari for Sanchez-Gomez, but declined to take up the issue of whether due process prohibits the use of restraints in non-jury proceedings. The circuit split and conflicting rationales present a need for clarity on this important constitutional issue.