Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
US v. Ciesiolka, 09-2787, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for knowingly attempting to persuade, induce, entice and coerce a minor to engage in sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. section 2422(b). In reversing the conviction and remanding for a new trial, the court held that the crime with which defendant was charged required the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed that the woman was under 18 and the district court improperly relieved the government of his burden by providing the jury with an ostrich instruction. The court also held that the district court failed to explain its ruling that the four-factor test for introducing evidence of prior acts under Rule 404(b) was satisfied and the evidence introduced in unconstrained fashion was perhaps excessively prejudicial in light of its probative value.
Borovsky v. Holder, 09-3104, concerned a petition for review, by a citizen of Ukraine, of an order of the BIA denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In denying the petition, the court held that, although the BIA's apparent misunderstanding that Eighth Circuit law controlled does not undermine its primary ground of decision, that petitioner failed to show persecution under the standard for withholding of removal, the BIA's Eighth Circuit case citations did not affect the outcome. The court also held that the denial of petitioner's claims for withholding or removal and CAT protection is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.
Anderson v. Aon Corp., 09-1144, concerned a challenge to the district court's judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) after determining that Illinois law supplies the rule of decision in plaintiff's suit against a corporation alleging a holder claim under California law and RICO, the latter claim which plaintiff dismissed, claiming that but for the corporation's fraud, he would have sold the stock before its price dropped. In reversing and remanding, the court held that California would elect to use its own law and would entertain plaintiff's holder action as plaintiff is a citizen of California, he sold his business in California to defendant and received the corporation's stock there.