Statute of Limitations

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court released opinions in two habeas cases, McQuiggin v. Perkins and Trevino v. Thaler. The holdings reek of liberal judicial activism, however well-intentioned.

In Perkins, my least favorite of Tuesday’s cases, the Court held that a showing of “actual innocence” is sufficient to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) statute of limitations. In effect, a narrow majority decided to judicially amend a validly enacted statute, creating an exception that the majority admits that the statute itself does not contain. On top of that, this particular case may have been a pretty defective vehicle for addressing the limitations question anyway. There’s a pesky matter, discussed at oral argument, about the procedural posture of the case, making it pretty dubious whether the Court should have even gotten to the merits here.

(Cases like Perkins make me want to appropriate my own version of Dan Savage’s “DTMFA” — shorthand for “Dump the Mother-F*cker Already.” Too often, it would be useful to just be able to write “DTMFA” for “DIG the Mother-F*cker Already” for cases that I wish that SCOTUS would dismiss as improvidently granted. But, alas, you probably have to be a syndicated sex columnist for the privilege of coining long-but-useful acronyms.)

Dark days for the fair application of AEDPA….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: The Death Penalty Dilemma”

Where is Oliver Stone when you need him?

It was a sparsely populated day today at the Supreme Court. The press box was depleted. The crowd was thin. Perhaps everyone else was still stuck in line waiting to vote?

Yet despite the low turnout, the Supreme Court made a spirited journey to the very heart of our nation’s federal conspiracy law.

To see the issue the Court wrestled with in Smith v. United States, let’s start with a hypothetical….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Conspiracies at the Supreme Court”

It must be every billionaire wine connoisseur’s dream to own a few bottles from the cellars of the man who drafted the Declaration of Independence. The taste of the prestige must be simply delightful. But after paying $311,804 for four bottles of wine that may have been counterfeit, even the richest of men would probably be left with the awful taste of sour grapes.

This is what allegedly happened to William Koch, brother to the controversially conservative Charles and David Koch, when he discovered that the wine he purchased from Thomas Jefferson’s cache in France may have been bogus. Because when you’re worth $4 billion, it must be embarrassing to file suit over a mere pittance. But that’s exactly what this wine aficionado did; no one fools a Koch brother and gets away with it.

Alas, it seems that Koch’s claim aged more like milk than fine wine, and the Second Circuit had the unfortunate task of telling him….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Billionaire Is SOL Because Of The SOL When It Comes to Thomas Jefferson’s Wine”

* “It seems no one can use dirty words, except Steven Spielberg.” Well, sh*t, I’ll be damned. Is Elena Kagan going to be the voice of reason in the Supreme Court’s FCC profanity case? [Los Angeles Times]

* Ken Cuccinelli filed an emergency motion to get Virginia’s primary ballots printed. You can’t wait three days for Perry’s hearing? It’s on Friday the 13th. You know how that’s going to go. [Bloomberg]

* The Tenth Circuit upheld a ruling to block an Oklahoma law barring the consideration of Sharia law in court decisions. If this pisses you off, go and watch Homeland. You’ll feel better. [MSNBC]

* Dewey want to join the Magic Circle? Bloody hell, of course! Clifford Chance has snagged two mergers and acquisitions partners from Dewey & LeBoeuf. [DealBook / New York Times]

* What will an LL.M. get you in today’s job market? Not a whole lot. And if you’re counting that extra year of loan debt as something of value, then you’re just a masochist. [National Law Journal]

* Heather Peters, the former lawyer suing Honda in small claims court, may be SOL because of a SOL issue. Stay tuned for the results at her second hearing later this month. [Huffington Post]