Transparency, heavy sentence and preemption issues

Petition this week

This week, we focus on the petition, asking the Supreme Court to consider the following: Does the First Amendment give the public the right to obtain a secret judicial decision authorizing intelligence surveillance; when the judge re-sents the sentence under the First Step Act Factors that must be considered. , And the interaction between federal employment and bankruptcy laws and other state laws, and may preempt other state laws.

American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Test whether the First Amendment requires transparency in foreign intelligence surveillance courts. Congress first established FISC in 1978 to “listen to electronic surveillance applications and approval orders from anywhere in the United States.” However, FISC proceedings are not open to the public, so courts rarely publish its rulings. In October 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion to seek the passage of the 2001 American Freedom Act and obtain court opinions and orders from September 11, 2001 (this bill requires Congress to declassify certain views, but it does not apply. Based on previous views). ). FISC rejected the motion, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance and Review Court, also established in 1978, also rejected the motion. The ACLU requires that “transparency of judicial procedures is essential to the rule of law,” and the ACLU requires judges to review.

Last week, the judge heard oral arguments. Terry v. United States, This is a case of the statutory interpretation of the “First Step Act of 2018”. Congress passed the bill to be partially traced back to the 2010 law, which reduced the sentencing gap between cocaine and strong cocaine. Houston v. United States The “First Step Act” was once again presented to the justices. Eddie Houston provided his extraordinary recovery record, age, realistic release plan, and history of child abuse in a provocative motion in the First Step Act. evidence.These factors include 18 USC§3553(a) Ask the court to consider imposing an initial sentence. However, the District Court confirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under the “First Step Act” did not expressly require the court to consider Houston’s motion when re-sentencing, but did not consider any of the factors in Section 3553(a). . Houston argued that the Federal Court of Appeals is divided on this issue, which may apply to thousands of defendants who are eligible for relief from the First Step Act, and Houston requires the justices to conduct a review.

There are two petitions asking the justices to determine whether federal laws take precedence over certain state Cal Cartage Transportation Express, LLC v. California, A state court in California ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 specifically prohibits any “state law related to the transportation of property related to the price, route, or service of any car carrier”, California’s “ABC test “. The ABC test usually states that workers are employees, not independent contractors, unless they are engaged in a different business than the employing company. As a result, although truck drivers are usually independent contractors, they will still be employees in California, and-as one might think-in states with similar laws such as Massachusetts. However, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that the Massachusetts ABC exam is a priority exam. Arguing that Congress passed the FAAAA to avoid a patchwork of state laws, and that a set of motorized vehicles that serve Los Angeles and Long Beach require the Supreme Court to redouble its consideration.

in Prevski v. Sutton 58 United LLCThe New York Court of Appeals allowed real estate lenders to file state law infringement suits, accusing investors of interfering with the loan agreement with two borrowers by facilitating their improper bankruptcy. Disputers believe that the decision is inconsistent with other federal and state decisions, and that the federal bankruptcy law takes precedence over the legal requirements of such states, so investors seek a review.

These and others Petition of the week as follows:

Cal Cartage Transportation Express, LLC v. California
problem: Whether Federal Aviation Administration Authorization ActExplicitly prohibits “state laws relating to the price, route, or service of any motorized vehicle,” but by discouraging the use of independent contractors, it takes precedence over state worker classification laws that affect motorized vehicle transportation prices and services.

Boechler, PC v. Internal Revenue Commissioner
problem?Is there a 30-day time limit to apply to the tax court for the internal tax commissioner of the tax bureau to issue a notice of decision? 26 USC§6330(d)(1) It is a jurisdictional requirement or claim processing rule subject to fair fees.

Houston v. United States
problem: Does the sentencing court have to consider applying to 18 USC§3553(a) When deciding whether to impose a reduced sentence under Article 404(b) of the First Step Act.

Prevski v. Sutton 58 United LLC
problem: Whether the Federal “Bankruptcy Law” presupposes the alleged abuse of bankruptcy procedures or attempts to impose liability based on the facts of bankruptcy in state law tort litigation priority.

Imperial Health Foundation v. Becerra
problem: (1) Whether the organization must accurately include key facts and data in the proposed rulemaking notice to meet the requirements of fair notice and the opportunity for the public to comment meaningfully; (2) Whenever a proposal proposes a dual choice of policy, Whether the adoption of one of these policies is always a “logical product” of the proposal can be based on any failure to comply with the notification and comment obligations.

American Civil Liberties Union v. United States
problem: (1) Whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has the same jurisdiction as other Article 3 courts, it can consider a motion claiming that the First Amendment provides a qualified public right to obtain important opinions from the court, and whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has proceeded The review has the right to consider an appeal due to rejection of the motion; (2) Whether the “First Amendment” provides a qualified right to publicly obtain FISC’s important opinions.

Source link