The U.S. Supreme Court issued two summary reversals today. These are cases where the decision of a lower court is so clearly wrong that no merits briefing or oral argument is needed. No dissent is indicated in either case.
Both cases involve rules limiting the ability of federal courts to second-guess actions of state officials based on rules that were not established at the time of the action. Both are decisions of circuits divisible by three. This movie has played on the Supreme Court Channel more times than the Harry Potter movies have played on cable TV.
In Shoop v. Hill, No. 18-56, the Sixth Circuit accepted a collateral attack on a 1993 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court because it was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas. That was "plainly improper" under an Act of Congress that limits such collateral attacks to decisions that were, at the time, "contrary to ... clearly established Federal law."
In City of Escondido v. Emmons, No. 17-1660, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity to two police officers who responded to a domestic violence call and required them to go to trial. It was uncontested on appeal that the officers had probable cause to arrest Marty Emmons, but the claim was that one of them used excessive force when he tackled Emmons after Emmons "brushed past them," although there was no apparent injury.
Why did the Ninth rule against the officer who used no force at all? Remarkably, it didn't say. Isn't some explanation in order before reversing a judgment as to one party? The Supreme Court thinks so and finds the absence "quite puzzling." As to the tackling officer, the Ninth committed the very frequent error of defining the "clearly established law" at too high a level of generality. How many times does the Supreme Court have to reverse on this basis before the courts of appeals clean up their acts?
"The Supreme Court thinks so and finds the absence 'quite puzzling.' As to the tackling officer, the Ninth committed the very frequent error of defining the 'clearly established law' at too high a level of generality. How many times does the Supreme Court have to reverse on this basis before the courts of appeals clean up their acts?"
Obviously, the judge who penned that nonsense is either incompetent or biased. I don't care which. But to answer the question--as long as we have a Chief Justice who lied to the American people when he said that there are no "Obama" judges, the answer is that cops and victims will continue to suffer through these awful decisions. Roberts is a smart guy, but he is intellectually dishonest, which makes him a bad judge.
Right.
"as his noblemen held high the train that
wasn't there at all."
The spokesman/swindler who defends his naked emperor as
'arrayed in his finest attire', has no credibility.
If Roberts had spoken aspirationally, as in, there should be no "Obama" judges,
he would have uttered idealistic, dated, yet noble sentiments.
Since Roberts spoke analytically, his assertions are miserably untrue
and his outrage purely worthless, spoken like a mindless apologist
or a weaver for the proverbial "naked emperor".
~https://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/03/16/hawaii-news/judge
-who-issued-travel-ban-ruling-is-obama-law-classmate/
~https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rebuking-trumps
-criticism-of-obama-judge-chief-justice-roberts-defends-judiciary-as-independent/2018/11/21/6383c7b2-edb7-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html?utm_term=.43307d450dea