Rory Little

Longtime constitutional, criminal & legal ethics Prof @UCLawSF. ScotusBlog columnist. Former USDOJ ADAG. Defended Brandon Jones to and during his GA execution.

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@OrinKerr The real separator is anonymity. No one expects, or even thinks, that Google will be looking at or caring about, location.
Means Smith is (finally) wrong.

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@OrinKerr Check out gorsuch’s view on voluntariness in Hunter: https://t.co/9h0WM2MSDy

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@OrinKerr No, I think they ran out of majority views, or majority answers. Kagan doing her current thing: sticking to the narrowest view to mark out the broadest majority. This is all they could do.

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@OrinKerr Definitely. Carpenter was just a “way station” (albeit an essential one).
And Chatrie may well be one too. No?

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@OrinKerr That was my prediction in SCOTUSblog. And Gorsuch, again, publishes a doctrine-shifting separate opinion.

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

Moving the “back” button from the bottom to the top of the mobile app screen is the worst, most unhelpful, “update” ever. @nytimes

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

Even with the Chatrie geofence 4th A decision not yet issued (Monday?), I think Hunter v. United States will undoubtedly prove to be, over a few years, the most important criminal case of this Supreme Court term. https://t.co/Bp07ALzkoz

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

Regarding Hermani last week: why didn't the Court rule flatly that 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional, at least in part? Or did it? The statute bans gun possession by any "unlawful user" of a controlled substance. The unanimous Court held that this provision cannot constituionally be applied to a person who unlawfully uses marijuana every other day. So the "user" part of the statute is unconsitutional and invalid, right? Why don't any of the four opinions say that? What am I missing?

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@OrinKerr i take it without reading anything else that lawyers on both sides fit that bill?

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

The solo Scalia concurrence is below; Margolin v. NFIJ is May 26 but I haven;'t figured out to hyperlink cases in Twitter posts (can that be done?). https://t.co/srDfpzz10a

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

When the Justices summarily reversed the 4th Circuit in Margolin two weeks ago, they claimed that a "principle of party presentation" is a "rule" supported by Justice Scalia. They grabbed a solo concurrence sentence from him -- and failed to note that Scalia was REJECTING the principle in that case. Sloppy law clerk grab, and/or Justices joining failed to read it? https://t.co/JI4ThFX1m2

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@smmarotta True also of the right to jury trial?

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@RMFifthCircuit Nice to see another Judge Brennan implementing NY Times v. Sullivan! 😀

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

And here below is my recent column on the pattern so far this Term. I'm often a critic of the current Court. But numbers are numbers..... https://t.co/kOtOIOsR85

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

The Court decided a major criminal law case today, Abouammo, based on the venue clauses in the Constitution. Another "pro-defendant" criminal decision, see my column about that pattern last Term, here: https://t.co/xvumm9i6Z6

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@johnpelwood A bit arrogant, perhaps?

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@KannonShanmugam @DavidLat YEs, that was/is a superlative episode of Original Jurisdiction.

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

@KannonShanmugam @OrinKerr You beat me to it. The Court uses Century Schoolbook, and it IS the "Supreme" court.... 😀

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

Abouammo is here: https://t.co/ui8BS30bKy Unanimous, by Justice Kagan. "Venue in criminal cases mattered more than might be supposed to the Nation's Founders."

[Rory Little @RKL1982]

Every criminal or related case that was argued at the Supreme Court last fall has been decided. Except one: Landor v. Louisiana. A very disturbing case where prison officials forcibly shaved an inmate's head in violation of his religious rights AND in defiance of a federal court ruling. And yet the Justices may say he can't get damages? https://t.co/jtjzOLop3R