Law Commons^™

Table Of Contents, Seventh Circuit Review

Seventh Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Blagojevich: A Standard Bait And Switch, Timothy J. Letizia

Seventh Circuit Review

In United States v. Blagojevich, the Seventh Circuit addressed the issue of whether the presumption in favor of disclosure of jurors' names had been rebutted. The Seventh Circuit began its analysis by recognizing three bases by which judicial proceeding information is made available to the press and the public: (1) the First Amendment right of access, (2) the common law presumption of openness, and (3) the Jury Selection and Service Act. While each of these bases functions primarily to make information available to the press and public, each also carries its own distinct standard by which the presumption of …

Discharge Of Rcra Injunctive Claims In Bankruptcy: The Seventh Circuit's Decision In United States V. Apex Oil Co., Inc., Diana E. Rdzanek

Seventh Circuit Review

In its recent decision in United States v. Apex Oil, Inc., the Seventh Circuit considered whether an injunction under an environmental statute, even one that requires significant expenditures on the part of the debtor, could ever be a "right to payment" under the Bankruptcy Code, which would allow the claim to be discharged in the bankruptcy. The Seventh Circuit answered in the negative. Since the Supreme Court's decision in Ohio v. Kovacs, the federal circuits have disagreed on the discrete issue of when a claim arises for purposes of bankruptcy with respect to clean-up injunctions under environmental laws. …

What Does Speed Have To Do With It?: An Analysis Of The Seventh Circuit's Application Of The Speedy Trial Act, Meagan S. Winings

Seventh Circuit Review

A defendant's right to a speedy trial is ensured by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the Speedy Trial Act. The right was created to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration, to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused, and to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired. The Speedy Trial Act is to be interpreted in light of this purpose; however, the Seventh Circuit, along with the other circuits and the Supreme Court, has deviated from this principle.

The Seventh Circuit has applied the excludable days exception within the Speedy Trial Act so liberally as to …

The Gatekeepers Keep Changing The Locks: Swanson V. Citibank And The Key To Stating A Plausible Claim In The Seventh Circuit Following Twombly And Iqbal, Gregory L. Grattan

Seventh Circuit Review

In Swanson v. Citibank, the Seventh Circuit debated with new vigor how to properly interpret and apply the Supreme Court's requirement that all complaints state a plausible claim. Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, if a complaint in any civil case does not state "a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," then it fails to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). In Swanson, Judge Diane Wood advocated for a liberal interpretation of …

How Less Is More: The Unraveling Of The Inextricable Intertwinement Doctrine Under United States V. Gorman, Jaime L. Padgett

Seventh Circuit Review

In July 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explicitly abolished the long-standing doctrine of inextricable intertwinement as a basis of admissibility for other bad acts evidence. The court held in United States v. Gorman that the doctrine had "become overused, vague, and quite unhelpful" and as such, "has outlived its usefulness." The court eliminated this basis of admissibility in favor of the exclusive use of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Although the two bases have different origins and initial purposes, by virtue of confusion and realities of the judicial system, the bases have come to …

Two-Thirds Of An Evidentiary Requirement: Are Courts Too Strict In Construing The Two-Thirds Citizenship Requirement Of The Cafa Home-State Exception?, John P. Orellana

Seventh Circuit Review

In In re: Nextel Sprint Corporation, the Seventh Circuit addressed the requirement that plaintiffs show that two-thirds of class members are citizens of the state under the CAFA home-state and local controversy exceptions in order to avoid removal to federal court. A plaintiff class, composed of Kansas residents subscribing to the defendant's cell phone service under Kansas cell phone numbers and receiving their bills at Kansas mailing addresses, sought remand to state court. Though the court found common sense intuitions implicated that the class likely satisfied the two-thirds citizenship requirement of the home-state exception, the court refused to remand …

Papa Don't Preach: Badger Catholic V. Walsh Muddies The Line Between Church And State, Nicholas K. Graves

Seventh Circuit Review

Religion's role in government activity marks a contentious area in the legal community. The First Amendment, by its own language, is ambiguous and fails to give true, clear guidance on where a line might be drawn between religion and government. Spirited debate on their coexistence is all but a constant in American society. Enter public education. The edification of American children from kindergarten through higher education has led to furious debate on when and where it is appropriate for religion to enter. In a recent case, Badger Catholic v. Walsh, the Seventh Circuit discussed religion in education in the …

Conclude To Exclude: The Exclusionary Rule's Role In Civil Forfeiture Proceedings, Daniel W. Kaminski

Seventh Circuit Review

The United States Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule in order to deter law enforcement officers from conducting illegal searches and seizures. By excluding illegally seized evidence, the Court looked to provide American citizens with a remedy to uphold their Fourth Amendment rights. Traditionally, the exclusionary rule excluded only illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. In One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, however, the Court applied the exclusionary rule to civil forfeiture proceedings because the forfeiture statute was quasi-criminal in nature: like a criminal proceeding, its object was to penalize the commission of an offense.

The forfeiture …

Federal Preemption Of State-Law Failure-To-Warn Claims: Has The Presumption Against Preemption Gone Too Far?, Amanda N. Hart

Seventh Circuit Review

Prescription drug warning labels are regulated by both state products liability law and federal regulations imposed by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Often, federal law acts as a minimum standard to which states may add stricter labeling requirements. Occasionally, however, state and federal labeling requirements place a prescription drug manufacturer in a position where compliance with state products liability law causes it to violate federal regulations and vice versa. When this occurs, a decision must be made as to whether state or federal drug labeling requirements prevail. Historically, courts have taken the position that state products liability law preempted …

Scrutinizing The Seventh Circuit: How The Court Failed To Address The "Levels Of Scrutiny" Quagmire In United States V. Skoien, Kyle J. Pozan

Seventh Circuit Review

In Footnote 4 of United States v. Carolene Products, frequently referred to as the most famous footnote in constitutional law, the Supreme Court advanced the idea that a narrower standard of review, one that calls for a "more searching judicial inquiry," should operate against the presumption of constitutionality for legislation that is aimed at a discrete and insular minority, or legislation that infringes on a fundamental right. In the landmark decision of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is a fundamental right that …

Table Of Contents, Seventh Circuit Review

Seventh Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Choice-Of-Law Rules In Bankruptcy: An Opportunity For Congress To Resolve Conflicting Approaches, Viktoria A. D. Ziebarth

Seventh Circuit Review

In In re Jafari, the Seventh Circuit had the opportunity to take a position on whether state or federal choice-of-law rules should be applied in bankruptcy cases. Instead, the court chose not to resolve the question because the outcome was the same under application of Wisconsin's choice-of-law rules and the federal common law choice-of-law rule used by the First and Ninth Circuits in bankruptcy and other federal question cases. The United States Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether state choice-of-law rules must be applied in bankruptcy. Furthermore, the Court has not extended its holding from Klaxon Co. v. …

Gross'ed Out: The Seventh Circuit's Over-Extension Of Gross V. Fbl Financial Services Into The Ada Context, Allison P. Sues

Seventh Circuit Review

In its recent decision in Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., the Seventh Circuit overruled its prior circuit precedent and found that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not create liability for mixed-motive claims. As a result of this decision, if an employer impermissibly considers an employee's disability in making a decision adverse to the employee, courts will not hold the employer liable provided that the plaintiff cannot also show that such consideration was the but-for cause of the challenged action. Prior to 2009, the Seventh Circuit had recognized mixed-motive causation under the ADA; it relied primarily on Price …

Reasonable Measures": Giving "Due Deference" To School Boards' Decisions In Cases Involving The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Stephen Monroe

Seventh Circuit Review

Currently, the federal appeals courts use different tests when examining state compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a Spending Clause statute meant to give students with disabilities meaningful educational instruction. The IDEA requires states receiving federal funds for special education to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) to each eligible student with a disability. Though there are varying tests used by the appeals courts, they can be lumped into two main categories: a reasonableness test and a factor test. The Seventh Circuit in Board of Education v. Ross adopted …

Preface, Paul Forster

Seventh Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Improving The Seventh Circuit's Approach To Illegal Reentry Prosecutions With A Constructive Discovery Standard And Fast-Track Sentencing, Steven Mroczkowski

Seventh Circuit Review

Where an alien has been removed, illegally reenters the United States, and is later found by immigration or federal law enforcement authorities, he has violated federal immigration law found in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Violators face two rolls of the dice depending on where they are convicted. If they are convicted in the Seventh Circuit, they lose on both rolls. Under the Seventh Circuit's actual discovery standard, the government can sustain a conviction brought long after the statute of limitations has tolled because they have no duty to locate an alien using reasonable diligence. Additionally, because districts in the Seventh …

How Many Environmental Plaintiffs Are Still Standing?, Andrew D. Dorn

Seventh Circuit Review

Standing is easy to describe but difficult to apply. At a minimum, standing requires three elements: (1) injury-in-fact; (2) traceability to conduct of the defendant; and (3) that a favorable decision could provide redress for the injury. This Note outlines the development of the standing doctrine from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife through Summers v. Earth Island Institute and examines how several courts have applied this standard to their cases. It also analyzes Pollack v. Department of Justice. It proposes an approach that demands more than pleadings but removes the court's license to pre-litigate the merits of the case …

Public Employee Free Speech After Garcetti: Has The Seventh Circuit Been Ignoring A Question Of Fact?, Sarah R. Kaplan

Seventh Circuit Review

Before the United States Supreme Court decided Garcetti v. Ceballos in 2006, courts decided the question whether a public employee's speech was protected by the First Amendment as a matter of law. Courts asked whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern. If it did, then the speech was protected if the employee's interest in exercising her First Amendment rights outweighed the employer's interest in maintaining an efficient workplace. Garcetti introduced a new threshold question: whether the public employee spoke pursuant to her official duties. This seems to introduce a factual question to the public employee free speech inquiry: …

Let's Be Reasonable: Fourth Amendment Principles In The Digital Age, Scott D. Blake

Seventh Circuit Review

The expansion of computers in American society has led to new developments in Fourth Amendment doctrine. Just like every other American, criminals use computers, which requires law enforcement to search and seize computers. Frequently, an executing officer inadvertently discovers computer files with illegal content that are outside the scope of the original warrant. Reasoning that traditional Fourth Amendment doctrine does not provide sufficient protection in a digital age, two federal circuits have crafted alternative approaches that deviate from it. However, the Seventh Circuit, in United States v. Mann, has continued to apply the traditional principles of Fourth Amendment doctrine …