Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Defining “Different”–How Distinctive Methods Of Textual Interpretation Led To The Abduction Enhancement Circuit Split, Adam Manaa
Pepperdine Law Review
This note examines the federal circuit courts’ differing approaches to interpreting the robbery abduction enhancement in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, this note sets forth how the Sixth Circuit’s strict method of textual interpretation in United States v. Hill led to the erroneous holding that the term “different location” refers to “a place different from the store that is being robbed.” This note argues the court should have taken a more holistic interpretative approach, taking the underlying purpose of the Guidelines into account.
Presumptively Awful: How The Federal Government Is Failing To Protect The Constitutional Rights Of Those Adjudicated As Mentally Ill, As Illustrated By The 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4) Circuit Split, Kaitlyn M. Rubcich
Pepperdine Law Review
The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are split as to whether the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) federal firearms ban violates the Second Amendment rights of those who were once adjudicated as mentally ill but have since returned to good mental health. In Beers v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit applied its own unique framework and held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department and deemed the statute unconstitutional, while in Mai v. United States, the Ninth Circuit also applied intermediate scrutiny but held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. …