From: "Legal Information Institute [LII]" <Legal_Information_Institute_LII@mail.vresp.com>
Date: Jun 1, 2015 1:09 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Bulletin for Monday, June 1, 2015
To: <g.pera44@gmail.com>
Cc:
 |  |  |
The following information has just arrived via the LII's direct Project HERMES feed from the Supreme Court. A list of links for today's material is followed by the syllabus for any case which had one.
Contents
- (060115 Orders)
- TAYLOR v. BARKES (060115 Percuriam)
- COUNTY OF MARICOPA v. LOPEZ-VALENZUELA (060115 Dissent)
- MELLOULI v. LYNCH (13-1034 Syllabus)
- ELONIS v. UNITED STATES (13-983 Syllabus)
- EEOC v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC. (14-86 Syllabus)
- BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. v. CAULKETT (13-1421 Syllabus)
Top
| Syllabus | Opinion [Ginsburg] | Dissent [Thomas] |
|---|---|---|
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 .
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
MELLOULI v. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit
No. 13–1034. Argued January 14, 2015—Decided June 1, 2015
Petitioner Moones Mellouli, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense under Kansas law, the possession of drug paraphernalia "to . . . store [or] conceal . . . a controlled substance." Kan. Stat. Ann. §21–5709(b)(2). The sole "paraphernalia" Mellouli was charged with possessing was a sock in which he had placed four unidentified orange tablets. Citing Mellouli's misdemeanor conviction, an Immigration Judge ordered him deported under 8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which authorizes the deportation (removal) of an alien "convicted of a violation of . . . any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21)." Section 802, in turn, limits the term "controlled substance" to a "drug or other substance" included in one of five federal schedules. 21 U. S. C. §802(6). Kansas defines "controlled substance" as any drug included on its own schedules, without reference to §802. Kan. Stat. Ann. §21–5701(a). At the time of Mellouli's conviction, Kansas' schedules included at least nine substances not on the federal lists. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed Mellouli's deportation order, and the Eighth Circuit denied his petition for review.
Held: Mellouli's Kansas conviction for concealing unnamed pills in his sock did not trigger removal under §1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Pp. 5–14.
(a) The categorical approach historically taken in determining whether a state conviction renders an alien removable looks to the statutory definition of the offense of conviction, not to the particulars of the alien's conduct. The state conviction triggers removal only if, by definition, the underlying crime falls within a category of removable offenses defined by federal law. The BIA has long applied the categorical approach to assess whether a state drug conviction triggers removal under successive versions of what is now §1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Matter of Paulus, 11 I. & N. Dec. 274, is illustrative. At the time the BIA decided Paulus, California controlled certain "narcotics" not listed as "narcotic drugs" under federal law. Id., at 275. The BIA concluded that an alien's California conviction for offering to sell an unidentified "narcotic" was not a deportable offense, for it was possible that the conviction involved a substance controlled only under California, not federal, law. Under the Paulus analysis, Mellouli would not be deportable. The state law involved in Mellouli's conviction, like the California statute in Paulus, was not confined to federally controlled substances; it also included substances controlled only under state, not federal, law.
The BIA, however, announced and applied a different approach to drug-paraphernalia offenses (as distinguished from drug possession and distribution offenses) in Matter of Martinez Espinoza, 25 I. & N. Dec. 118. There, the BIA ranked paraphernalia statutes as relating to "the drug trade in general," reasoning that a paraphernalia conviction "relates to" any and all controlled substances, whether or not federally listed, with which the paraphernalia can be used. Id., at 120–121. Under this reasoning, there is no need to show that the type of controlled substance involved in a paraphernalia conviction is one defined in §802.
The BIA's disparate approach to drug possession and distribution offenses and paraphernalia possession offenses finds no home in §1227(a)(2)(B)(i)'s text and "leads to consequences Congress could not have intended." Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U. S. ___, ___. That approach has the anomalous result of treating less grave paraphernalia possession misdemeanors more harshly than drug possession and distribution offenses. The incongruous upshot is that an alien is not removable for possessing a substance controlled only under Kansas law, but he is removable for using a sock to contain that substance. Because it makes scant sense, the BIA's interpretation is owed no deference under the doctrine described in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 . Pp. 5–11.
(b) The Government's interpretation of the statute is similarly flawed. The Government argues that aliens who commit any drug crime, not just paraphernalia offenses, in States whose drug schedules substantially overlap the federal schedules are deportable, for "state statutes that criminalize hundreds of federally controlled drugs and a handful of similar substances, are laws 'relating to' federally controlled substances." Brief for Respondent 17. While the words "relating to" are broad, the Government's reading stretches the construction of §1227(a)(2)(B)(i) to the breaking point, reaching state-court convictions, like Mellouli's, in which "[no] controlled substance (as defined in [§802])" figures as an element of the offense. Construction of §1227(a)(2)(B)(i) must be faithful to the text, which limits the meaning of "controlled substance," for removal purposes, to the substances controlled under §802. Accordingly, to trigger removal under §1227(a)(2)(B)(i), the Government must connect an element of the alien's conviction to a drug "defined in [§802]." Pp. 11–14.
719 F. 3d 995, reversed.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined.
Top
| Syllabus | Opinion [Roberts] | Concurrence [Alito] | Dissent [Thomas] |
|---|---|---|---|
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 .
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
elonis v. united states
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
No. 13–983. Argued December 1, 2014—Decided June 1, 2015
After his wife left him, petitioner Anthony Douglas Elonis, under the pseudonym "Tone Dougie," used the social networking Web siteFacebook to post self-styled rap lyrics containing graphically violent language and imagery concerning his wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, and state and federal law enforcement. These posts were often interspersed with disclaimers that the lyrics were "fictitious" and not intended to depict real persons, and with statements that Elonis was exercising his First Amendment rights. Many who knew him saw his posts as threatening, however, including his boss, who fired him for threatening co-workers, and his wife, who sought and was granted a state court protection-from-abuse order against him.
When Elonis's former employer informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the posts, the agency began monitoring Elonis's Face-book activity and eventually arrested him. He was charged with five counts of violating 18 U. S. C. §875(c), which makes it a federal crime to transmit in interstate commerce "any communication containing any threat . . . to injure the person of another." At trial, Elonis requested a jury instruction that the Government was required to prove that he intended to communicate a "true threat." Instead, the District Court told the jury that Elonis could be found guilty if a reasonable person would foresee that his statements would be interpreted as a threat. Elonis was convicted on four of the five counts and renewed his jury instruction challenge on appeal. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that Section 875(c) requires only the intent to communicate words that the defendant understands, and that a reasonable person would view as a threat.
Held: The Third Circuit's instruction, requiring only negligence with respect to the communication of a threat, is not sufficient to support a conviction under Section 875(c). Pp. 7–17.
(a) Section 875(c) does not indicate whether the defendant must intend that the communication contain a threat, and the parties can show no indication of a particular mental state requirement in the statute's text. Elonis claims that the word "threat," by definition, conveys the intent to inflict harm. But common definitions of "threat" speak to what the statement conveys—not to the author's mental state. The Government argues that the express "intent to extort" requirements in neighboring Sections 875(b) and (d) should preclude courts from implying an unexpressed "intent to threaten" requirement in Section 875(c). The most that can be concluded from such a comparison, however, is that Congress did not mean to confine Section 875(c) to crimes of extortion, not that it meant to exclude a mental state requirement. Pp. 7–9.
(b) The Court does not regard "mere omission from a criminal enactment of any mention of criminal intent" as dispensing with such a requirement. Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246 . This rule of construction reflects the basic principle that "wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal," and that a defendant must be "blameworthy in mind" before he can be found guilty. Id., at 252. The "general rule" is that a guilty mind is "a necessary element in the indictment and proof of every crime." United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250 . Thus, criminal statutes are generally interpreted "to include broadly applicable scienter requirements, even where the statute . . . does not contain them." United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U. S. 64 . This does not mean that a defendant must know that his conduct is illegal, but a defendant must have knowledge of "the facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense." Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 , n. 3. Federal criminal statutes that are silent on the required mental state should be read to include "only that mens rea which is necessary to separate" wrongful from innocent conduct. Carter v. United States, 530 U. S. 255 . In some cases, a general requirement that a defendant act knowingly is sufficient, but where such a requirement "would fail to protect the innocent actor," the statute "would need to be read to require . . . specific intent." Ibid. Pp. 9–13.
(c) The "presumption in favor of a scienter requirement should apply to each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct." X-Citement Video, 513 U. S., at 72. In the context of Section 875(c), that requires proof that a communication was transmitted and that it contained a threat. And because "the crucial element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct," id., at 73, is the threatening nature of the communication, the mental state requirement must apply to the fact that the communication contains a threat. Elonis's conviction was premised solely on how his posts would be viewed by a reasonable person, a standard feature of civil liability in tort law inconsistent with the conventional criminal conduct requirement of "awareness of some wrongdoing," Staples, 511 U. S., at 606–607. This Court "ha[s] long been reluctant to infer that a negligence standard was intended in criminal statutes." Rogers v. United States, 422 U. S. 35 (Marshall, J., concurring). And the Government fails to show that the instructions in this case required more than a mental state of negligence. Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 , distinguished. Section 875(c)'s mental state requirement is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat. The Court declines to address whether a mental state of recklessness would also suffice. Given the disposition here, it is unnecessary to consider any First Amendment issues. Pp. 13–17.
730 F. 3d. 321, reversed and remanded.
Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Top
| Syllabus | Opinion [Scalia] | Concurrence [Alito] | Concurrence [Thomas] |
|---|---|---|---|
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 .
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
No. 14–86. Argued February 25, 2015—Decided June 1, 2015
Respondent (Abercrombie) refused to hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious obligations conflicted with Abercrombie's employee dress policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on Elauf's behalf, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, inter alia, prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant's religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. The EEOC prevailed in the District Court, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, awarding Abercrombie summary judgment on the ground that failure-to-accommodate liability attaches only when the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.
Held: To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need. Title VII's disparate-treatment provision requires Elauf to show that Abercrombie (1) "fail[ed] . . . to hire" her (2) "because of" (3) "[her] religion" (including a religious practice). 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). And its "because of" standard is understood to mean that the protected characteristic cannot be a "motivating factor" in an employment decision. §2000e–2(m). Thus, rather than imposing a knowledge standard, §2000e–2(a)(1) prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor's knowledge: An employer may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. Title VII contains no knowledge requirement. Furthermore, Title VII's definition of religion clearly indicates that failure-to-accommodate challenges can be brought as disparate-treatment claims. And Title VII gives favored treatment to religious practices, rather than demanding that religious practices be treated no worse than other practices. Pp. 2–7.
731 F. 3d 1106, reversed and remanded.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Top
| Per Curiam [] |
|---|
Per Curiam
Top
| Syllabus | Opinion [Thomas] |
|---|---|
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 .
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. v. CAULKETT
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit
No. 13–1421. Argued March 24, 2015—Decided June 1, 20151
Respondent debtors each filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and each owned a house encumbered with a senior mortgage lien and a junior mortgage lien, the latter held by petitioner bank. Because the amount owed on each senior mortgage is greater than each house's current market value, the bank would receive nothing if the properties were sold today. The junior mortgage liens were thus wholly underwater. The debtors sought to void their junior mortgage liens under §506 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides, "To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void." 11 U. S. C. §506(d). In each case, the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion, and both the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Held: A debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding may not void a junior mortgage lien under §506(d) when the debt owed on a senior mortgage lien exceeds the current value of the collateral if the creditor's claim is both secured by a lien and allowed under §502 of the Bankruptcy Code. Pp. 2–7.
(a) The debtors here prevail only if the bank's claims are "not . . . allowed secured claim[s]." The parties do not dispute that the bank's claims are "allowed" under the Code. Instead, the debtors argue that the bank's claims are not "secured" because §506(a)(1) provides that "[a]n allowed claim . . . is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor's interest in . . . such property" and "an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor's interest . . . is less than the amount of such allowed claim." Because the value of the bank's interest here is zero, a straightforward reading of the statute would seem to favor the debtors. This Court's construction of §506(d)'s term "secured claim" in Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U. S. 410 , however, forecloses that reading and resolves the question presented here. In declining to permit a Chapter 7 debtor to "strip down" a partially underwater lien under §506(d) to the value of the collateral, the Court in Dewsnup concluded that an allowed claim "secured by a lien with recourse to the underlying collateral . . . does not come within the scope of §506(d)." Id., at 415. Thus, under Dewsnup, a "secured claim" is a claim supported by a security interest in property, regardless of whether the value of that property would be sufficient to cover the claim. Pp. 2–4.
(b) This Court declines to limit Dewsnup to partially underwater liens. Dewsnup's definition did not depend on such a distinction. Nor is this distinction supported by Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U. S. 324 , which addressed the interaction between the meaning of the term "secured claim" in §506(a)—a definition that Dewsnup declined to use for purposes of §506(d)—and an entirely separate provision, §1322(b)(2). See 508 U. S., at 327–332. Finally, the debtors' suggestion that the historical and policy concerns that motivated the Court in Dewsnup do not apply in the context of wholly underwater liens is an insufficient justification for giving the term "secured claim" a different definition depending on the value of the collateral. Ultimately, the debtors' proposed distinction would do nothing to vindicate §506(d)'s original meaning and would leave an odd statutory framework in its place. Pp. 5–7.
No. 13–1421, 566 Fed. Appx. 879, and No. 14–163, 556 Fed. Appx. 911, reversed and remanded.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Ginsburg, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Kennedy, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined except as to the footnote.
Notes
1 Together with No. 14–163, Bank of America, N. A. v. Toledo-Cardona, also on certiorari to the same court.
Donate to LII: http://liicr.nl/GIVE2LII.
Follow @LIICornell on Twitter: http://twitter.com/liicornell.
Friend us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Law.LII.
| Click to view this email in a browser If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe |
| Legal Information Institute [LII] 477 Myron Taylor Hall Ithaca, New York 14853 US Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy. |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.