Monthly Archives: November 2020

Lauren Stewart, CLS ’22

During the Coronavirus pandemic, states wielded unprecedented emergency powers. As a result, courts served as arbiters when state power clashed with individual rights across the country. One of the most convoluted court battles was waged in Texas. In one month, the legal status of abortion in Texas changed nine times.[1]

On March 22, 2020, Governor Abbott issued executive order GA-09 postponing non-essential surgeries and procedures until April 21.[2] The next day the Texas attorney general published a press release interpreting GA-09 which explicitly stated abortion providers must stop all non-emergency abortions for that period.[3] The Texas Medical Board immediately passed a corresponding Emergency Rule.[4] Purportedly to conserve Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and preserve hospital capacity during the crisis, .[5] For some who would be past the gestational threshold for legal termination by April 21, abortion would be wholly inaccessible.

Several abortion facilities immediately filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).[6] The district court ruled that while GA-09 was within the governor’s authority, the press release and Emergency Rule was an abortion ban that violated Supreme Court precedent.[7] The court concluded that the ban’s limited potential reduction of PPE was outweighed by the harm imposed on the right to a pre-viability abortion. On the balance, eliminating this time-sensitive medical procedure did not serve the public interest.[8]

The State appealed and the Fifth Circuit employed the writ of mandamus— a “drastic and extraordinary remed[y]”[9]— to vacate the TRO. The Fifth Circuit substituted the rights-specific test and standard of review developed by Roe v. Wade[10] and its progeny and instead applied their interpretation of the 115-year-old case Jacobson v. Massachusetts.[11] In the Fifth Circuit’s view, Jacobson, a case concerning a $5 fine for a man who refused to get vaccinated, dictated a mandatory universal standard of deferential, rational basis-like review during a public health crisis.[12]

The sole dissenter emphatically criticized the majority in both substance and procedure. The dissent argued that Jacobson is not only clearly distinguishable but also Jacobson clearly states in emergency situations that courts should invalidate laws that “went beyond the necessity of the case and, under the guise of exerting a police power… violated rights secured by the Constitution.”[13] Additionally the dissent criticized the majority’s reliance on the writ when the lower court rightly applied 50 years of Supreme Court abortion precedent.[14]

In a second TRO, the district court applied both Jacobson and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,[15] and allowed resumption of medication abortions and procedural abortions for patients who would be legally barred from having an abortion after April 21.[16] The two-one Fifth Circuit panel once again employed the writ of mandamus and reinstated the abortion ban.[17]

On April 22, a new state order, confirmed in the State’s court filing, officially allowed abortion providers to resume services.[18]

What remains unclear is the role of the Fifth Circuit when a state’s emergency powers clashes with individual liberty. Justice Jackson’s warning in his Korematsu v. United States dissent remains a relevant caution: “[excessive state power] lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.”[19]

[1] In re Abbott II, 956 F.3d 696, 740 (5th Cir. 2020) (Dennis, J., dissenting in part) (explaining that decision would be the seventh time abortion’s status had changed during the pandemic); In re Abbott III, 809 F. App’x 200 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding medication abortion could resume); State Defs. Supp. Resp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. * 4, Planned Parenthood Ctr. for Choice v. Abbott, No. 20-cv-00323 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2020) (conceding under the new state order announced the day before that abortion procedures could resume).

[2] In re Abbott I, 954 F.3d 772, 777 (5th Cir. 2020).

[3] Planned Parenthood Ctr. for Choice v. Abbott I, 450 F. Supp. 3d 753, 756-57 (W.D. Tex. 2020), vacated, No. A-20-CV-323-LY, 2020 WL 1808897 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2020).

[4] In re Abbott I, 954 F.3d at 780.

[5] Id. at 790-91 (explaining the time limit for legal abortion in Texas is twenty-two weeks after the last menstrual period).

[6] Planned Parenthood Ctr. for Choice v. Abbott I, 450 F. Supp. 3d at 756-57.

[7] In re Abbott I, 954 F.3d at 758.

[8] Id. at 758-59.

[9] In re Abbott II, 956 F.3d at 724 (Dennis, J., dissenting in part) (quoting Ex Parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259 (1947)).

[10] 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[11] 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

[12] In re Abbott I, 954 F.3d at 784.

[13] Id. at 800-02 (Dennis, J., dissenting) (quoting Jacobson v. Mass., 197 U.S. 11, 29).

[14] In re Abbott I, 954 F.3d at 804 (Dennis, J., dissenting).

[15] 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

[16] Planned Parenthood Ctr. for Choice v. Abbott II, No. A-20-CV-323-LY, 2020 WL 1815587, at *6-7 (W.D. Tex. April 9, 2020).

[17] In re Abbott II, 956 F.3d 696 (5th Cir. 2020).

[18] State Defs. Supp. Resp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 4, Planned Parenthood Ctr. for Choice v. Abbott, No. 20-cv-00323 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2020).

[19] 323 U.S. 214, 246 (1944).

Morrease Leftwich, CLS ’22

Abdullah Muhammad filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania this summer.[1] He is seeking relief from a sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and upheld by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In his state appeal and in his Habeas Corpus petition, he makes a number of arguments which point to alleged improper behavior on behalf of the trial court. However, it is my opinion that his most meritorious argument has to do with a parole restriction the trial court imposed, which seems to be unauthorized under the text of the court’s supporting statute.

In 2014, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County convicted Muhammad of first degree murder. In the court’s opinion, the trial judge held that Muhammad was sentenced in accordance with 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102. [2] §1102 governs first degree murder sentencing; it allows the jury in such cases to decide between life imprisonment and death. [3] In the case of Muhammad, the government did not seek death. Considering the plain text of § 1102, it is reasonable to believe Muhammad’s sentence would be life imprisonment: “shall be sentenced to death or to a term of life imprisonment…” Instead, the court held, “where the Commonwealth did not seek the death penalty, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was a mandatory sentence.”[4]

On review, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the parole restriction, framing it as an issue regarding 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756, [5] which requires that trial courts attach a minimum sentence to any sentence of total confinement. [6] This minimum sentence serves as a mandatory term of confinement, during which an inmate is not eligible for parole.[7] To justify an exemption from this rule, the Superior Court quoted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Hudson v. Pa. Board of Probation and Parole, which held that “the sole statutory directive for courts in imposing a minimum term of total confinement does not apply to mandatory life sentences.”[8] In Hudson, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was adjudicating another challenge to a parole restriction.[9] To justify that trial court’s seemingly unauthorized parole restriction, [10] the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pointed to § 9756(c).[11] However, the problem is that the version the Court cited to is twenty-one years old.[12] The current version of § 9756(c) reads:

The court may impose a sentence to imprisonment without the right to parole under this subsection only when:(1) a summary offense is charged; (2) sentence is imposed for nonpayment of fines or costs, or both, in which case the sentence shall specify the number of days to be served; and (3) the maximum term or terms of imprisonment imposed on one or more indictments to run consecutively or concurrently total less than 30 days.[13]

In the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion, however, § 9756(c) begins, “[e]xcept in the case of murder of the first degree, the court may impose…”[14] Assuming the Court wouldn’t purposely misquote the statute, I reviewed older versions and found that such language which the Court imputed to § 9756(c) was last found in the 1999 version of the statute.[15] Given my understanding of the gravity of a life without parole sentence, this error is troubling to say the least.

That said, I do not believe that the change to § 9756 shows the legislature’s intent to make inmates like Muhammad parole eligible. Instead, I believe it only goes to show that the courts have no right to impose a parole restriction. Thus, I agree with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s reliance on the other statute it cited: 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.[16] That statute is directed to the Parole Board and it denies the Board the right to parole inmates serving life sentences.[17] In the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion in Hudson, § 6137 was properly applied – the defendant brought a challenge to the Parole Board’s denial of the defendant’s parole application, instead of a challenge to a sentence.[18]

However, in the Superior Court’s opinion in Muhammad’s case, reliance on § 6137 and Hudson was misplaced. The fact that the legislature intends for the Parole Board to deny parole to Muhammad does not authorize the courts to preempt the parole board from doing just that. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is no different from the United States in that its governmental underpinning is the separation of powers. Accordingly, the Pennsylvania courts should clean up its jurisprudence on parole restrictions under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102 sentencing. In this day-in-age, where criminal justice reform has already gained tank-like traction, it is reasonable to suspect that the Pennsylvania legislature may amend its statutory scheme to allow for the parole of reformed inmates serving life sentences, specifically by amendment of 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137.

My concern is that if the courts persist in upholding statutorily unauthorized life without parole sentences, those sentences will shield inmates like Muhammad from the lawful effects of such progressive statutory amendments.[19] The Pennsylvania courts clearly believe they are executing the legislative plan. However, by doing so, they will prevent future legislation from having its intended effect, thus standing in the way of legislative choice. Staying silent, except to execute the text of the statutes, would be a more effective way to implement the legislative plan. In the case of Muhammad’s Habeas Corpus petition, the U.S. District Court should make clear to the Pennsylvania courts that it recognizes its error and is willing to correct it in lieu of their own motivation to do so.

[1] Petition for Habeas Corpus, Muhammad v. Ransom, No. 20-4313 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2020)

[2] Commonwealth v. Muhammad, No. CP-51-Cr-0005853-2012, at *12 (Phila. C.P. Dec. 23, 2014) (written opinion filed Oct. 5, 2018).

[3] 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(a)(1) (2020) (“[A] person who has been convicted of a murder of the first degree or of murder of a law enforcement officer of the first degree shall be sentenced to death or to a term of life imprisonment in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711 (relating to sentencing procedure for murder of the first degree).”); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(a)(1) (2020) (“[T]he jury shall determine whether the defendant shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.”).

[4] Muhammad, No. CP-51-Cr-0005853-2012, at *12

[5] Commonwealth v. Muhammad, No. CP-51-Cr-0005853-2012, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4663, at *11 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2019).

[6] 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b)(1) (2020).

[7] Id. at § 9756(b)(2).

[8] Muhammad, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4663, at *11 (quoting Hudson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 204 A.3d 392, 398 (Pa. 2019))

[9] Id. at 394-96 This case actually involved an inmate’s challenge to the Pennsylvania Parole Board’s denial of his application for parole. It can further be differentiated by the fact that the defendant was serving a life sentence for a second-degree murder conviction.

[10] Id. at 394-95 (The ‘parole restriction’ imposed was really just a failure on behalf of the trial court to impose a minimum sentence in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b)(1)).

[11] Hudson, 204 A.3d at 398.

[12]  Compare 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9756 (2000) with 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9756 (1999).

[13] 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(c) (2020), https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/42/00.097.056.000..HTM [https://perma.cc/HF9G-ZYB5].

[14] Hudson, 204 A.3d at 398.

[15] Compare 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9756 (2000) with 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9756 (1999).

[16] Hudson, 204 A.3d at 398.

[17] See 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137(a)(1) (2020) (“The board. . . may release on parole any inmate. . . except an inmate condemned to death or serving life imprisonment. . .”).

[18] Hudson, 204 A.3d, at 394.

[19] As Hudson shows, such a change in the legislative plan would still face the obstacle posed by the fact that the Pennsylvania courts almost never impose minimum sentences on defendants sentenced to life imprisonment. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Manning, 495 Pa. 652 (Pa. 1981); Commonwealth v. Yount, 419 Pa. Super. 613 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). However, it would be easier for the legislature to impose a general minimum sentence by statute for those defendants than it would be to correct individual cases of judicial overreach on behalf of a few overzealous trial courts.

Sam Ackerman, CLS ’22

Unlike most federal agencies, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is uniquely led by an equal number of Democrat and Republican commissioners.[1] Because issues related to election integrity impact all Americans, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)—the FEC’s governing statute—provides for the right of private parties to file complaints and appeal non-enforcement decisions to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[2] If the District Court finds the FEC’s dismissal of a complaint to be “contrary to law,” the FEC must either enforce the matter, or the complainants may bring a civil action against the accused party themselves.[3] However, following the March 2019 D.D.C. decision in CREW v. FEC (New Models), the citizen-led review mechanism and FECA’s distinctive statutory structure may be cast asunder.

In 2014, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an election ethics watchdog, filed a complaint with the FEC against a conservative organization called New Models for failing to disclose its donors.[4] FECA (and subsequent case law interpreting FECA) requires any organization that makes more than $1,000 in expenditures towards influencing elections and for whom influencing elections is a “major purpose” to register as a political committee subject to donor disclosure regulations.[5] In 2012, New Models spent $3 million, or 68%, of its total spending on Political Action Committees (PACs), and thus, CREW argued that New Models itself is a “political committee” under FECA.[6] In its complaint, CREW asserted that $3 million in spending is far beyond the $1,000 statutory threshold for expenditures.[7] CREW then asserted that New Models had a “major purpose” of electing candidates because far more than a simple majority (68%) of its spending went towards PACs.[8]

Nonetheless, the FEC—in a 2-2 party-line split—dismissed the complaint against New Models.[9] The GOP commissioners claimed that New Models’ $3 million in spending was merely contributions and not expenditures[10], and thus, the spending does not qualify towards FECA’s $1,000 expenditure requirement.[11] Further, the commissioners looked at New Model’s spending over a number of years—which then averaged out to less than 50% of spending—to determine that New Models lacked a “major purpose” in electing candidates.[12] CREW filed a complaint to the D.D.C., as case law seemed to invariably point to the fact that both of the FEC’s interpretations of FECA’s requirements had been uniformly rejected by the courts.[13]

Upon CREW’s 2018 appeal to the D.D.C., however, the District Court did not get a chance to address the substantive claims that most likely would have favored the complainants. Rather, the court claimed that “because the Controlling Commissioners invoked prosecutorial discretion, the Court is also foreclosed from evaluating the Controlling Commissioners’ otherwise reviewable interpretations of statutory text and case law.”[14] As it turned out, the 32-page dismissal memo that engaged in deep and likely flawed interpretations of FECA, passively used the phrase “prosecutorial discretion” in a single sentence in the memo’s conclusion.[15]

Although the case is currently on appeal to the D.C. Circuit, the ruling as it stands has the potential to eviscerate FECA’s deliberately bipartisan enforcement structure that allows citizens to challenge non-enforcement decisions. The D.D.C.’s creation of a magic words-like test will certainly ensure that the term “prosecutorial discretion” is inserted in any politically salient non-enforcement memo. Such a change in the FEC appeals process flies in the face of Congress’ goals in enacting FECA: to ensure partisanship does not infect the enforcement of integrity in elections.

The decision could also have consequences that pervade the post-Citizens United campaign finance system generally. Citizens United allowed for a flurry of uncoordinated, independent expenditures made by individuals, corporations, and non-profits alike.[16] However, Citizens United was also predicated on the notion that corruption in independent expenditures is not a compelling state concern, so long as there is a rigorous system of donor disclosure.[17] If a partisan group of commissioners can effectively block action against political allies without a shred of legal justification, then there is reason to doubt that the disclosure system will continue to act as a partial (albeit inadequate) check on unlimited outside expenditures and the appearance of corruption unlimited expenditures may evoke. With no hearing in sight at the D.C. Circuit, CREW v. FEC (New Models) will certainly curtail FEC enforcement as the country enters into the final stages of what will likely be the most expensive presidential election in American history.

[1] 52 U.S.C. § 30106(a)(1).

[2] 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A).

[3] 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C).

[4] Complaint, CREW v. FEC (New Models), No.1:18-cv-00076 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 12, 2018).

[5] 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4)(A); 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(2)–(8); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976) (requiring the influencing of election outcomes to be a “major purpose” under FECA).

[6] Id. at 1-2.

[7] Id. at 2.

[8] Id. at 9.

[9] See, Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Caroline C. Hunter and Comm’r Lee E. Goodman, MUR No. 6872 (Dec. 20, 2017), https://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/17044435569.pdf.

[10] FECA defines “contributions” in part as “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i). FECA defines “expenditure” to be inclusive of many forms of contributions and is similarly defined in part as “any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(9)(A)(i).

[11] Id. at 18.

[12] Id. at 20.

[13] See, CREW v. FEC, 209 F. Supp. 3d 77, 94 (D.D.C. 2016) (“CREW/AAN”) (explaining that a multi-year approach to the major purposes test is impermissible); Shays v. FEC, 511 F. Supp. 2d 26-27 (D.D.C. 2007) (suggesting that once a major purpose is established, the term “expenditure” is to be broadly construed to encompass all spending to influence the outcome of an election).

[14] CREW v. FEC (New Models) at 22-23, No. 1:18-cv-00076-RC, (D.D.C. 2019).

[15] Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Caroline C. Hunter and Comm’r Lee E. Goodman at 31, MUR No. 6872 (Dec. 20, 2017), https://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/17044435569.pdf.

[16] Karl Evers-Hillstrom, More Money, Less Transparency: A Decade Under Citizens United, Open Secrets (Jan. 14, 2020), https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citizens-united.

[17] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 370-71 (2010).