This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/keep_track by /u/rusticgorilla on 2023-09-26 18:38:09.
Housekeeping:
- HOW TO SUPPORT: If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. Just three dollars a month makes a huge difference! No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
- NOTIFICATIONS: You can signup to receive a monthly email with links to my posts or subscribe to Keep Track’s Substack (RSS link).
The Supreme Court is back in session next week, hearing important cases on racial gerrymandering, civil asset forfeiture, and mandatory minimums in its first 30 days of the term.
OCT 2: Pulsifer v. United States
Pulsifer v. United States is about the interpretation of a federal law that allows defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug crimes. In a twist that originalists and textualists on the Supreme Court are sure to love, the case centers around whether “and” means “and” or if “and” means “or.”
Mark Pulsifer pleaded guilty to one count of distributing at least fifty grams of methamphetamine. He faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison due to a prior “serious drug felony” conviction. However, according to the First Step Act, defendants convicted of nonviolent drug crimes are eligible for individualized sentencing—avoiding the mandatory minimum—if they satisfy several criteria. This includes the requirements that the defendant did not possess a firearm or threaten violence while committing the drug crime and cooperated fully with the government. Key to the case before the Supreme Court, however, is a provision outlining prior offenses that disqualify a defendant from individualized sentencing:
…the court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission under section 994 of title 28 without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds at sentencing, after the Government has been afforded the opportunity to make a recommendation, that—
(1) the defendant does not have—
(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
- In order to calculate a defendant’s criminal history points, the United States Sentencing Commission adds points based on the length of each prior sentence. For example, a prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month is assigned 3 points.
Pulsifer had two 3-point drug offenses but no 2-point violent offenses. Therefore, he argued that he was eligible for individualized sentencing before he did “not have—(A) more than 4 criminal history points … , (B) a prior 3-point offense … ; and © a prior 2-point violent offense.” The district court and 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Pulsifer, finding that meeting any one of the criteria disqualifies a person from circumventing the mandatory minimum sentencing. Had Pulsifer’s case been heard in the 9th Circuit, however, he would have received individualized sentencing:
The Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have split 1–2 over the meaning of “and” in § 3553(f)(1). In the Ninth Circuit, “and” means “and.” A defendant must have (A) more than 4 points, (B) a 3-point offense, and © a 2-point violent offense before § 3553(f)(1) disqualifies him from safety-valve relief. In the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, in contrast, “and” means “or.” A defendant can satisfy § 3553(f)(1) and prove his eligibility for safety-valve relief only if he shows that he does not have (A) more than 4 points, (B) a 3-point offense, or © a 2-point violent offense— i.e., that he has none of the above.
Pulsifer asks the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve whether “and” means “and” or if “and” means “or” — and, as a result, determine how many people charged with non-violent drug crimes will be exempt from mandatory minimums.
OCT 3: CFPB v. Community Financial Services Assn
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a federal agency that implements and enforces consumer protection laws in the financial sector, supervising banks, lenders, credit reporting agencies, and debt collection companies. Congress created the CFPB after the financial crisis of 2007–2008 as part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
In 2017, the CFPB issued a new rule regulating unfair and abusive practices related to short-term loans. One provision prohibits lenders like payday loan companies from making more than two consecutive attempts to withdraw payments from a consumer’s account when previous attempts have failed due to insufficient funds—preventing lenders from causing a consumer to incur excessive fees.
A trade association representing the payday loan industry, the Community Financial Services Association of America, sued the CFPB, seeking an order to block the short-term loan rule. The Association argued that the CFPB exceeded its statutory authority in making the rule and, even if it did not, the Bureau is unconstitutionally structured and should be stripped of its authority anyway.
The district court found in favor of the CFPB. The Association appealed to the 5th Circuit, drawing one of the most favorable panels possible: Don Willet, Cory Wilson, and Kurt Engelhardt, all Trump appointees. The panel sided with payday lenders, even though they say “for the most part, the [Association’s] claims miss their mark.” The one claim the panel embraced just so happens to void the CFPB entirely:
We agree that, for the most part, the Plaintiffs’ claims miss their mark. But one arrow has found its target: Congress’s decision to abdicate its appropriations power under the Constitution, i.e., to cede its power of the purse to the Bureau, violates the Constitution’s structural separation of powers. We thus reverse the judgment of the district court, render judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, and vacate the Bureau’s 2017 Payday Lending Rule…
Because the funding employed by the Bureau to promulgate the Payday Lending Rule was wholly drawn through the agency’s unconstitutional funding scheme,17 there is a linear nexus between the infirm provision (the Bureau’s funding mechanism) and the challenged action (promulgation of the rule). In other words, without its unconstitutional funding, the Bureau lacked any other means to promulgate the rule.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional.
OCT 4: Acheson Hotels v. Laufer
Acheson Hotels v. Laufer is about whether people who “test” businesses for compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) have standing to sue when they have no intention to visit the location.
Deborah Laufer is a disabled person who lives in Florida and is dependent upon a wheelchair for independent movement. She is a self-appointed ADA “tester” who searches the internet for hotel websites that do not provide adequate information for people with disabilities. When she finds a hotel that is not in compliance, she files a lawsuit seeking a court order that the business comes into compliance and money to cover attorney’s fees.
According to the ADA, all hotel websites must identify and describe the accessible features of the property and the accessible guest rooms in enough detail to enable an individual to decide if the facility will meet his or her needs. Laufer discovered that Acheson Hotels in Maine did not provide enough information and filed suit.
Acheson argues that Laufer does not have standing to sue because she had no intention of staying at their hotels. Circuit Courts have split on the issue.
- More information: NAACP and ACLU amicus brief in support of Laufer
OCT 10: Great Lakes Insurance v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.
Ballotpedia: In 2019, a yacht owned by Raiders Realty Co., based in Pennsylvania, ran aground and acquired at least $300,000 in damages. The yacht was insured by Great Lakes Insurance SE, which denied coverage due to the fact that the yacht’s fire…
Content cut off. Read original on https://old.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/16ssvc1/supreme_court_back_in_session_racial/