Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
US v. Jadlowe, 08-2449, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for drug conspiracy crimes. In affirming, the court held that, although the district court erred in instructing the jurors that they could discuss the case among themselves during the trial, before formal deliberations commenced, a showing of prejudice is necessary to justify a new trial based on premature jury discussions and, before the issue of prejudice can be addressed, the defendant must show that such discussions in fact occurred. Here, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial on the claim of premature jury discussions as the record is silent on whether the jurors engaged in discussion of the case during the trial. Lastly, there is no reversible error in the suppression and evidentiary rulings that defendant disputes.
Sotirion v. US, 08-2566, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal of defendant's 28 U.S.C. section 2255 petition to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, for his racketeering and tax crimes. In affirming the dismissal, the court held that defendant has not demonstrated that his appellate waiver is invalid on the basis of a plain error challenge to the district court's compliance with Rule 11(b)(1)(N). However, despite the failure of this plain error challenge to the Rule 11 procedure, the court held that it retains jurisdiction to refuse to enforce the appellate waiver if such enforcement would work a miscarriage of justice. Here, the defendant has not demonstrated that enforcement of the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice in this case.
Saccucci Auto Group, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 09-2110, concerned an automobile dealer's suit against the car manufacturer, Honda, and its entities, claiming that Honda's decision to prohibit its dealers from selling Honda Vehicle Servicing Contracts (VSCs) over the Internet violates Rhode Island's Dealer Act. In affirming the district court's grant of Honda's motion summary judgment, the court held that, assuming the Dealer Act applies to this case, no reasonable jury could find in plaintiff's favor on its Dealer Act claims. The court held that Honda's actions did not unfairly interfere with any contractual objectives, nor is there evidence of bad faith. Also, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's amendment as futile.
IMS Health Inc. v. Mills, 08-1248, concerned a challenge to the constitutionality of 22 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, section 1711-E(2-A), which allows prescribers licensed in Maine to choose not to make their identifying information available for use in marketing prescription drugs to them.
In reversing the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in prohibiting Maine from enforcing section 1711-E(2-A) on the basis of plaintiffs' First Amendment claims, the court held that plaintiffs' First Amendment challenges fail for the reasons stated in Ayotte, as the statute regulates conduct, not speech, and even if it regulates commercial speech, that regulation satisfies constitutional standards. Also, the Maine statute constitutionally protects Maine prescribers' choice to opt in to confidentiality protection to avoid being subjected to unwanted solicitations based on their identifying data. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the statute is void for vagueness. Lastly, the court held that section 1711-E(2-A) regulates prescription drug information intermediaries' out-of-state use or sale of opted-in Maine prescribers' data, and this interpretation does not raise constitutional concerns under the dormant Commerce Clause, nor would section 1711-E(2-A)'s regulation of prescription drug information intermediaries' out-of-state use of sale of opted-in Maine prescribers' identifying data raise constitutional concerns as a disproportionate burdens on interstate commerce under Pike.