JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION SUMMARIES May-June

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION SUMMARIES
May-June 2019

Alaska Advisory Opinion 2019-1

http://www.acjc.alaska.gov/advopinions.html#2019-01

Disqualification: Former public defender A former public defender is disqualified from matters involving former clients for 2 years after becoming a judge unless the disqualification is waived but is not disqualified from cases against the state or a municipality or from cases in which the public defender’s office appears.

Arizona Advisory Opinion 2019-1

http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/137/ethics_opinions/2019/ethics%20opinion%2019-01.pdf

Unsolicited donation for problem-solving court incentives A court may accept unsolicited monetary donations from a charitable organization to purchase incentives such as gift cards and bus passes for participants in problem-solving courts.

Florida Advisory Opinion 2019-17

http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/LegalPractice/opinions/jeacopinions/2019/2019- 17.html

Disqualification: Parents’ former law firm, parents’ tenant

A judge is not required to disqualify from cases involving her lawyer-parent’s former law firm. A judge is not automatically recused from cases involving a law firm that leases a building from

her parent if her parent’s interest can be classified as de minimis.

Florida Advisory Opinion 2019-18

http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/LegalPractice/opinions/jeacopinions/2019/2019- 18.html

Writing book A judge may write a book about family law courts and the mental health issues sometimes

associated with them, specifically, the “warning signs” that judges and litigants should be

concerned about, and may actively promote the book as long as he does not use the prestige of office to promote the book and the judge, his judicial assistant, and members of his family do not sell the book to any member of the Bar.

Florida Advisory Opinion 2019-19

http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/LegalPractice/opinions/jeacopinions/2019/2019- 19.html

Free stay at resort A judge may accept a friend's offer of a free stay in a suite that has been provided to the friend by an attorneys' association holding a conference at a resort when the judge is disqualified from cases involving the friend. Illinois Advisory Opinion 2019-1 Participation in issue-related gatherings A judge may participate in a “March for Science” that is centered on matters that are unlikely to come before the court. To determine whether to participate in an issue-related gathering, a judge should thoughtfully examine whether the issues might be likely to come before the court or adversely impact judicial independence or the appearance of impropriety or bias.

Indiana Advisory Opinion 1-2019

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/jud-qual/files/jud-qual-adops-1-19.pdf

Retiring and senior judge: Public endorsements A judicial officer who is retiring may not publicly endorse any candidate for public office

including a successor candidate for the retiring judge’s seat. A senior judge may publicly

endorse candidates for public office but may not use her judicial title or court resources (such as wearing a judicial robe) to bolster such endorsements.

Maryland Advisory Opinion Request 2019-13

https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/import/ethics/pdfs/2019-13.pdf

Interview with juvenile judge sentenced With conditions, a judge who re-sentenced a person for a murder committed while the person was a juvenile may, after the person’s probation has ended, participate in a brief e-mail interview that will be published in the person’s memoir.

Maryland Advisory Opinion Request 2019-14

https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/import/ethics/pdfs/2019-14.pdf

Clerk accepting salary advance A judge may not permit an incoming law clerk to accept a salary advance from the law firm for which the law clerk will be working after the clerkship.

Nebraska Advisory Opinion 2019-1

https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/ethics-opinions/Judicial/19-1.pdf

Ex parte communications A judge may not have ex parte communications when the courts are closed over the weekend

and holidays with a county attorney about an arrestee’s criminal record for the purpose of

setting an appearance bond. New Mexico Advisory Opinion 2018-8

http://jec.unm.edu/manuals-resources/advisory-opinions/Advisory_Opinion_18-08.pdf

Disqualification: Judge is defendant in lawsuit A judge who is a defendant in a writ proceeding brought by candidates who unsuccessfully applied for the position of domestic relations commissioner is not disqualified from other cases involving those candidates.

2
New Mexico Advisory Opinion 2018-9

http://jec.unm.edu/manuals-resources/advisory-opinions/Advisory_Opinion_18-09.pdf

Part-time judge: Use of title An attorney may identify himself as a probate judge on his law office web-site, but his bio on the court’s web-site should not describe his practice beyond a limited disclosure of his experience.

New York Advisory Opinion 2018-168

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/18-168.htm

Leadership in bar associations; governmental task force; lecturing at private law school A judge may serve in leadership positions in bar associations, including as an officer, director, committee chair, or non-legal advisor to a local or national bar association. A judge may serve on a governmental task force to address the impacts of closing a prison facility if its members represent a broad spectrum of interests and it will focus on planning an orderly transition rather than fielding complaints. A judge may teach or lecture part-time at a private law school and accept reasonable compensation; if the compensation exceeds $150, the judge must file a report at least annually with the court clerk’s office. The judge may discuss cases during a law school class unless the case is pending before her or in her jurisdiction.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-25

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-25.htm

Part-time judges: Disqualification

Where a town justice’s law firm formerly had a business relationship with another firm

involving uncompensated courtesy referrals, the judge is disqualified from all cases in which the other firm appears for 2 years from the date the relationship terminated, subject to remittal after full disclosure provided no party is appearing without counsel.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-31

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-31.htm

Part-time judges: Disqualification

Where the town attorney has become “of counsel” to a town justice’s law firm, the town justice

is disqualified from all cases in which the town is a party, including town code enforcement cases. If there is any likelihood that town code cases will come before the court, the town justice must resign from one of the positions.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-32

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-32.htm

Part-time judges: Non-legal employment A part-time judge who is also a full-time college professor may participate in an academic research project analyzing data from the centralized arraignment court’s first year of operation and accept compensation from the college for this work pursuant to a grant administered by the office of court administration.

3
New York Advisory Inquiry 2019-37

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-37.htm

Campaign fund-raising

A judicial candidate’s campaign committee may use an electronic event invitation system that

charges 2% of the ticket price per ticket to distribute fund-raising invitations and sell tickets. New York Advisory Opinion 2019-38

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-38.htm

Part-time judges: Non-legal employment A part-time judge may not serve as a fire investigator in the county where she presides.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-41

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-41.htm

Part-time judges: Community activity A part-time judge may not serve on an advisory committee that makes recommendations to the district attorney regarding a convicted offender’s application to vacate a prior conviction even if the judge will not be personally identified in the recommendation and the district attorney has full authority over her response to the application before the court.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-43

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-43.htm

Disqualification: Co-judge’s spouse, law firm partners

A judge is not disqualified from cases in which her co-judge’s spouse, a police officer, appears. A part-time town justice should not permit her co-judge’s law firm partners or associates to practice before her.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-44

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-44.htm

Disciplinary responsibilities: Attorney A judge is required to report an attorney who made false claims about the judge in affidavits in a case in which the attorney is appearing pro se and in other unrelated proceedings brought against the judge and is required to recuse from the matter but may in his discretion wait to report until the proceeding ends.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-45

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-45.htm

Reporting criminal conduct

A support magistrate may report a litigant’s apparently criminal conduct to law enforcement

but is not required to do so.
4
New York Advisory Opinion 2019-46

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-46.htm

Disqualification: Co-judge’s caseload A town justice whose co-judge is unavailable to handle any cases may deposit and transmit fine money received in cases previously adjudicated by her co-judge in fulfilment of statutory and regulatory directives but, before handling her co-judge’s caseload, must check for conflicts and disqualify herself when necessary.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-48

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-48.htm

Disciplinary responsibilities: Attorney A judge who received correspondence from opposing attorneys in a case stating differing views on whether a suspended attorney was practicing law is not required to take any action unless the judge is satisfied that she had information about a substantial likelihood that the lawyer committed a substantial violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and is not required to investigate.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-49

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-49.htm

Disqualification

A judge who “so ordered” the parties’ settlement stipulation may preside in an application to

enforce the stipulation and at an evidentiary hearing to resolve possible ambiguities if he has

no extra-judicial knowledge of the parties’ intentions.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-50

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-50.htm

Displaying rainbow flag A judge may not display a rainbow flag or rainbow heart sticker on the bench or in the courtroom to communicate to individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, transgender, or queer that

they are in a “safe, affirming and inclusive space.”

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-51

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-51.htm

Disqualification: Relative is police officer A judge is disqualified from vehicle and traffic law matters when the police officer who issued the infraction is a first-degree relative.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-53

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-53.htm

Campaign advertisements A judicial candidate may not use a stock photograph of strangers with a banner that reads “Re-

Elect Judge [Name] for Us!” on his campaign materials.

5
New York Advisory Opinion 2019-54

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-54.htm

Reporting conduct A judge is not required to report to the district attorney’s office that the diversion program

coordinator at the district attorney’s office, who is not an attorney, advised a defendant who

had pled guilty by mail to change the plea to not guilty so that the defendant could enter the diversion program, but may do so.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-59

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-59.htm

Disqualification: Relative is undersheriff A judge whose second-degree relative is undersheriff (1) may not preside in matters involving

the county sheriff’s department unless the disqualification is remitted but (2) may conduct

centralized arraignments not involving the county sheriff even at the sheriff’s offices. New York Advisory Opinion 2019-61

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-61.htm

Community service A town justice may require a defendant to perform community service with the town government provided it is lawful to do so.

New York Advisory Opinion 2019-62

https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/19-62.htm

Renting apartment to court officer A judge may rent an apartment to a court officer who sometimes serves in his court.

South Carolina Advisory Opinion 6-2019

https://www.sccourts.org/advisoryOpinions/html/06-2019.pdf

Staff: Disqualification A judge may perform routine administrative functions in matters in which the law firm representing his secretary appears.

South Carolina Advisory Opinion 7-2019

https://www.sccourts.org/advisoryOpinions/html/07-2019.pdf

Staff: Disqualification A judge does not need to disqualify the docket clerk from cases prosecuted by the law enforcement officer with whom he is involved or to disclose the relationship.

South Carolina Advisory Opinion 8-2019

https://www.sccourts.org/advisoryOpinions/html/08-2019.pdf

Staff: Other employment

A municipal court judge’s former clerk who is now working as a paralegal for the city solicitor’s

office may not continue working weekends as a clerk for the bond judge on an emergency basis.

6
Washington Advisory Opinion 2019-2

http://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_ethics/?fa=pos_ethics.dispopin&mode=1902

Donating item to auction A judicial officer may donate an item to a charitable auction as long as her name or participation is not associated with the donated item but may not donate a drinks and hor d'ouerves event in her new home. The judicial officer's spouse may donate to the auction unless the gift or service donated features their shared residence or includes personal interaction with the judicial officer, which members of the legal community are aware of.

Washington Advisory Opinion 2019-3

https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicupload/eclips/2019%2006%2024%20Ethics%20Opin ion%2019-03.pdf

Staff: Pro bono service Court employees who are licensed members of the bar may volunteer their services to a pro bono publico service program even in a representative capacity outside of regular hours of employment, but, before deciding whether to allow a court employee to provide pro bono services, a judicial officer should consider whether the court has a policy related to outside

employment or volunteer work, the nature of the court employee’s role with the court, the

nature of participation in the service, whether participation will lead to frequent disqualification of the judicial officer, and whether staff participation may convey the impression that the court employee is in a position to influence the judge or is expressing the judge’s views on pending or impending cases.

West Virginia Advisory Opinion 2019-1

http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/advisory-opinions.htm

New judge A judge may receive payments from her former law firm pursuant to an operating agreement that pre-dated her appointment to the bench but must disclose the payments in any case involving the firm as long as the payments continue.

West Virginia Advisory Opinion 2019-3

http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/advisory-opinions.htm

Government commission A magistrate judge may not serve on the county fire board.

West Virginia Advisory Opinion 2019-4

http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/advisory-opinions.htm

A judge cannot disclose to the future employer of the respondent-father in an abuse and neglect case that the father tested positive for methamphetamine.

7
West Virginia Advisory Opinion 2019-5

http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/advisory-opinions.htm

Family issues A judge’s spouse may act as a poll worker for a municipal election.

West Virginia Advisory Opinion 2019-6

http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/advisory-opinions.htm

Legislator running for judge A member of the House of Delegates whose term ends in 2020 may run for magistrate and retain her legislative seat until taking the oath of office for magistrate in January 2021.

West Virginia Advisory Opinion 2019-7

http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/advisory-opinions.htm

Part-time judge law firm appearing before other judges A mental hygiene commissioner’s law partner may not appear in front of other commissioners in guardianship cases unless the mental hygiene commissioner’s authority is limited to involuntary hospitalization hearings, the mental hygiene commissioner does not act as a factfinder in any guardianship/conservator matters, and the mental hygiene commissioner disqualifies himself when a conflict develops.

West Virginia Advisory Opinion 2019-8

http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/advisory-opinions.htm

Financial activities A magistrate judge should not open a pawn shop.

West Virginia Advisory Opinion 2019-9

http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/advisory-opinions.htm

Disqualification: Conduct as legislator A judge who oversaw legislation that made West Virginia a right-to-work state while serving as a member of the House of Delegates must voluntarily recuse himself from any appeal from a decision challenging the right-to-work laws.

Recommended publications
  • Published Ethics Advisory Opinions (Guide, Vol. 2B, Ch

    Published Ethics Advisory Opinions (Guide, Vol. 2B, Ch

    Guide to Judiciary Policy Vol. 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct Pt. B: Ethics Advisory Opinions Ch. 2: Published Advisory Opinions § 210 Index § 220 Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinions No. 2: Service on Governing Boards of Nonprofit Organizations No. 3: Participation in a Seminar of General Character No. 7: Service as Faculty Member of the National College of State Trial Judges No. 9: Testifying as a Character Witness No. 11: Disqualification Where Long-Time Friend or Friend’s Law Firm Is Counsel No. 17: Acceptance of Hospitality and Travel Expense Reimbursements From Lawyers No. 19: Membership in a Political Club No. 20: Disqualification Based on Stockholdings by Household Family Member No. 24: Financial Settlement and Disqualification on Resignation From Law Firm No. 26: Disqualification Based on Holding Insurance Policy from Company that is a Party No. 27: Disqualification Based on Spouse’s Interest as Beneficiary of a Trust from which Defendant Leases Property No. 28: Service as Officer or Trustee of Hospital or Hospital Association No. 29: Service as President or Director of a Corporation Operating a Cooperative Apartment or Condominium No. 32: Limited Solicitation of Funds for the Boy Scouts of America No. 33: Service as a Co-trustee of a Pension Trust No. 34: Service as Officer or on Governing Board of Bar Association No. 35: Solicitation of Funds for Nonprofit Organizations, Including Listing of Judges on Solicitation Materials No. 36: Commenting on Legal Issues Arising before the Governing Board of a Private College or University No. 37: Service as Officer or Trustee of a Professional Organization Receiving Governmental or Private Grants or Operating Funds No.
  • Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019 [Amended 4 March 2019 by Request]

    Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019 [Amended 4 March 2019 by Request]

    25 FÉVRIER 2019 AVIS CONSULTATIF EFFETS JURIDIQUES DE LA SÉPARATION DE L’ARCHIPEL DES CHAGOS DE MAURICE EN 1965 ___________ LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS IN 1965 25 FEBRUARY 2019 ADVISORY OPINION TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-24 I. EVENTS LEADING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE REQUEST FOR THE ADVISORY OPINION 25-53 II. JURISDICTION AND DISCRETION 54-91 A. Jurisdiction 55-62 B. Discretion 63-68 1. Whether advisory proceedings are suitable for determination of complex and disputed factual issues 69-74 2. Whether the Court’s response would assist the General Assembly in the performance of its functions 75-78 3. Whether it would be appropriate for the Court to re-examine a question allegedly settled by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under UNCLOS Annex VII in the Arbitration regarding the Chagos Marine Protected Area 79-82 4. Whether the questions asked relate to a pending dispute between two States, which have not consented to its settlement by the Court 83-91 III. THE FACTUAL CONTEXT OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS 92-131 A. The discussions between the United Kingdom and the United States with respect to the Chagos Archipelago 94-97 B. The discussions between the Government of the United Kingdom and the representatives of the colony of Mauritius with respect to the Chagos Archipelago 98-112 C. The situation of the Chagossians 113-131 IV. THE QUESTIONS PUT TO THE COURT BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 132-182 A. Whether the process of decolonization of Mauritius was lawfully completed having regard to international law (Question (a)) 139-174 1.
  • Advisory Opinion 2019-12

    Advisory Opinion 2019-12

    OPINION 2019-12 Issued October 4, 2019 Appointment of a Magistrate as an Eldercare Coordinator SYLLABUS: A probate court magistrate may not be appointed as an eldercare coordinator in addition to his or her duties as a judicial officer. The dual appointment of a probate court magistrate as an eldercare coordinator interferes with the official duties of the position of magistrate and leads to frequent disqualification. The dual appointment of a probate court magistrate as an eldercare coordinator raises questions as to the magistrate’s impartiality. This nonbinding advisory opinion is issued by the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct in response to a prospective or hypothetical question regarding the application of ethics rules applicable to Ohio judges and lawyers. The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct is solely responsible for the content of this advisory opinion, and the advice contained in this opinion does not reflect and should not be construed as reflecting the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Questions regarding this advisory opinion should be directed to the staff of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct. 65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5TH FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431 Telephone: 614.387.9370 Fax: 614.387.9379 www.bpc.ohio.gov HON. JOHN W. WISE RICHARD A. DOVE CHAIR DIRECTOR PATRICIA A. WISE D. ALLAN ASBURY VICE- CHAIR SENIOR COUNSEL KRISTI R. MCANAUL COUNSEL OPINION 2019-12 Issued October 4, 2019 Appointment of a Magistrate as an Eldercare Coordinator SYLLABUS: A probate court magistrate may not be appointed as an eldercare coordinator in addition to his or her duties as a judicial officer.
  • Advisory Opinions and the Influence of the Supreme Court Over American Policymaking

    Advisory Opinions and the Influence of the Supreme Court Over American Policymaking

    ADVISORY OPINIONS AND THE INFLUENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT OVER AMERICAN POLICYMAKING The influence and prestige of the federal judiciary derive primarily from its exercise of judicial review. This power to strike down acts of the so-called political branches or of state governments as repugnant to the Constitution — like the federal judicial power more generally — is circumscribed by a number of self-imposed justiciability doctrines, among the oldest and most foundational of which is the bar on advi- sory opinions.1 In accord with that doctrine, the federal courts refuse to advise other government actors or private individuals on abstract legal questions; instead, they provide their views only in the course of deciding live cases or controversies.2 This means that the Supreme Court will not consider whether potential legislative or executive ac- tion violates the Constitution when such action is proposed or even when it is carried out, but only when it is challenged by an adversary party in a case meeting various doctrinal requirements. So, if a legisla- tive coalition wishes to enact a law that might plausibly be struck down — such as the 2010 healthcare legislation3 — it must form its own estimation of whether the proposal is constitutional4 but cannot know for certain how the Court will ultimately view the law. The bar on advisory opinions is typically justified by reference to the separation of powers and judicial restraint: when courts answer le- gal questions outside the legal dispute-resolution process, they reach beyond the judicial role and assume a quasi-legislative character. But ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 See Flast v.
  • Advisory Opinion 21-01 on the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Scope of Preemption Provision January 8, 2021

    Advisory Opinion 21-01 on the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Scope of Preemption Provision January 8, 2021

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20201 ADVISORY OPINION 21-01 ON THE PUBLIC READINESS AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ACT SCOPE OF PREEMPTION PROVISION JANUARY 8, 2021 Following the issuance by the Secretary on December 3, 2020, of the Fourth Amendment to his Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19, we have received questions as to whether the PREP Act applies where a covered person declined to use a covered countermeasure when it arguably ought to have been used.1 See 85 Fed. Reg. 79,190 (Dec. 9, 2020). These inquiries were stimulated, as we understand, by a spate of recent lawsuits, most involving nursing homes and other healthcare facilities, where patients or their estates allege that patients contracted COVID-19 because the facility, among other things, failed to provide its staff with personal protective equipment (“PPE”), failed to teach the staff how to properly use that equipment, or failed to ensure that its staff used the PPE that it had been given. This Advisory Opinion addresses these questions in the context of our administration of the PREP Act and the Secretary’s PREP Act Declaration, as amended. I. Analysis There has been a growing number of suits related to the use or non-use of covered countermeasures against COVID-19, including PPE. These cases tend to be filed in state courts alleging a variety of state law-based torts. In this “jurisprudential Kabuki dance” (Maine Public Utilities Com'n v. F.E.R.C., 625 F.3d 754, 758 (D.C.
  • Published United States Court of Appeals for The

    Published United States Court of Appeals for The

    PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1976 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2578, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:19-cv-02322-PX) Argued: May 5, 2021 Decided: June 11, 2021 Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Rushing and Senior Judge Traxler joined. ARGUED: Kyle David Lyons-Burke, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jack E. Starcher, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Austin R. Evers, Melanie Sloan, John E. Bies, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, Washington, D.C.; R. Stanton Jones, Daniel F. Jacobson, Jacob Zionce, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michael S. Raab, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland; Susan K. Ullman, General Counsel, UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 2 WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. No matter how interesting or elegant a party’s argument, the federal courts have no power to breathe life into disputes that come to us without it. The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2578 (jointly “AFGE”) claim that we must enjoin the enforcement of an agency’s advisory opinion, already since withdrawn, even before we have the slightest indication that any enforcement action has, or will ever, occur.
  • Advisory Opinion 20-05 on Implementing Allina December 3, 2020

    Advisory Opinion 20-05 on Implementing Allina December 3, 2020

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20201 ADVISORY OPINION 20-05 ON IMPLEMENTING ALLINA DECEMBER 3, 2020 The Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) has received questions regarding the steps the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS” or “the Department”) is taking to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in Azar v. Allina Health Services, 139 S. Ct. 1804 (2019) that the Department must use notice-and-comment rulemaking in certain circumstances where the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) does not require such rulemaking. In this Advisory Opinion, OGC clarifies what the public can expect the Center for Medicare to do in order to satisfy Allina’s requirements regarding notice-and-comment rulemaking. This advisory opinion sets forth the current views of the Office of the General Counsel.1 It is not a final agency action or a final order. Nor does it bind HHS or the federal courts. It does not have the force or effect of law. I. Meaning of “Substantive Legal Standard” The Supreme Court in Allina held that under Social Security Act Section 1871, any Medicare issuance that establishes or changes a “substantive legal standard” governing the scope of benefits, payment for services, eligibility of individuals to receive benefits, or eligibility of individuals, entities, or organizations to furnish services, must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking. See also Social Security Act § 1871(a)(2). The Court declined to define the term “substantive legal standard,” other than to conclude it is not coterminous with the APA term “substantive rule.” See 139 S.
  • Using International Court of Justice Advisory Opinions to Adjudicate Secessionist Claims David Sloss Santa Clara University School of Law, Dlsloss@Scu.Edu

    Using International Court of Justice Advisory Opinions to Adjudicate Secessionist Claims David Sloss Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected]

    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2001 Using International Court of Justice Advisory Opinions to Adjudicate Secessionist Claims David Sloss Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Recommended Citation 42 Santa Clara L. Rev. 357 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. USING INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ADVISORY OPINIONS TO ADJUDICATE SECESSIONIST CLAIMS David Sloss* I. INTRODUCTION Hardly a week passes without news of deaths attribut- able to a violent conflict between a group demanding "auton- omy" or "independence" and a national government resisting those demands. For example, in a single week in March 2001, "[t]hree bombs in southern Russia, blamed on Chechen rebels, killed a score of civilians," and there were "three Pal- estinian bomb explosions in Israel, one of which killed two teenagers." The previous week, the "ETA, the Basque sepa- ratist terror group, killed the deputy mayor of a small town in the Basque region a week after setting off two car-bombs in Mediterranean resorts."' Clearly, the international commu- nity has a substantial interest in promoting peaceful resolu- tion of secessionist disputes. The International Court of Justice ("I.C.J.") advisory opinion procedure is a potentially useful mechanism, hereto- fore under-utilized, for the settlement of disputes between recognized states and secessionist groups within those states.' This is not to say that all or even most secessionist disputes can be solved by I.C.J.
  • In the Supreme Court of Texas

    In the Supreme Court of Texas

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 10-0121 444444444444 THE FINANCE COMMISSION OF TEXAS, THE CREDIT UNION COMMISSION OF TEXAS, AND TEXAS BANKERS ASSOCIATION, PETITIONERS, v. VALERIE NORWOOD, ELISE SHOWS, MARYANN ROBLES-VALDEZ, BOBBY MARTIN, PAMELA COOPER, AND CARLOS RIVAS, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Argued September 13, 2011 JUSTICE JOHNSON, concurring in part and dissenting in part, and dissenting from the judgment. I dissent from parts III and IV of the Court’s opinion and from its judgment. Six homeowners filed suit in this case three weeks after the Finance and Credit Union Commissions’ interpretations of the home equity lending provisions in Section 50 became effective. The Homeowners challenged seventeen of the interpretations, but did not allege that any of the interpretations impacted a loan they applied for or considered applying for, or that they had been discouraged from applying for a loan by the interpretations. Nor does the record contain facts showing how any one, much less all, of the interpretations caused the Homeowners an actual, imminent, potential, or even hypothetical particularized injury. In post-submission briefing the Commissions argue that the matter should be remanded to the trial court to give the Homeowners the opportunity to replead so they can show jurisdictional facts. Instead of giving them that opportunity, the Court concludes the Homeowners have standing to challenge all the interpretations because their pleadings implicitly allege injury to their “prospective interest” in home equity loans. It then addresses the merits in what I view as an advisory opinion.
  • Citations to International Agreements, Cases and Arbitration Under

    Citations to International Agreements, Cases and Arbitration Under

    CITATION TO INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS, CASES, AND ARBITRATIONS UNDER BLUEBOOK RULE 21 © 2017 The Writing Center at GULC. All Rights Reserved.∗ Citation to international sources,1 such as a treaty or a case decided by an international court, is governed by Rule 21 of the Bluebook. Rule 21 also covers citation to documents published by certain intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations, European Union, and World Trade Organization, but these rules are not discussed in this handout. Citation to foreign materials2 like statutes of another country is also not within the scope of this handout. This handout focuses on Rule 21.4 (Treaties and Other International Agreements), Rule 21.5 (International Law Cases), and Rule 21.6 (International Arbitrations and Claims Commissions), and provides guidance on how to format the citation for each source. I. TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS Citation of a treaty or other international agreement generally includes the following information: (1) name of the agreement, (2) parties to the agreement, if applicable, (3) subdivisions, if citing only part of an agreement, (4) date of signing, and (5) the source(s) where the treaty or agreement can be found. The citation will be different based on whether the treaty or agreement is between two parties or multiple parties. In the following citation examples, the relevant portion discussed in each heading or paragraph is highlighted in blue for purposes of illustration only. Name of Agreement (Rule 21.4.1) The name of the treaty or agreement should include both its form and subject matter. The agreement could take various forms, such as an agreement, convention, memorandum, protocol, treaty, or understanding.
  • Does Equity Allow an ERISA Plan to Seek Reimbursement from a Participant’S General Assets?

    Does Equity Allow an ERISA Plan to Seek Reimbursement from a Participant’S General Assets?

    ERISA Does Equity Allow an ERISA Plan to Seek Reimbursement from a Participant’s General Assets? CASE AT A GLANCE Many employee benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) allow plan sponsors to recover plan assets wrongly in the hands of participants. Under ERISA, however, the judicial remedies available to a plan sponsor to enforce this right are limited to an injunction or “other appropriate equitable relief,” a phrase that typically does not include money damages. The Supreme Court must decide whether any equitable remedies allow a plan sponsor to recover from a participant’s general assets when the participant has dissipated the particular assets belonging to the plan. Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan Docket No. 14-723 Argument Date: November 9, 2015 From: The Eleventh Circuit by Daniel Thies Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL ISSUE This case presents just such a question. The Employee Retirement Does a lawsuit by an ERISA fiduciary against a participant to recover Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) allows plan sponsors to an alleged overpayment by the plan seek “equitable relief” within sue participants to enforce a plan’s terms, but under a provision the meaning of ERISA Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), providing only the limited remedies of an injunction or “other if the fiduciary has not identified a particular fund that is in the appropriate equitable relief.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). This case participant’s possession and control at the time the fiduciary asserts tests whether allowing a plan to recover from a participant’s general its claim? assets when the particular funds being sought have been dissipated is “appropriate equitable relief.” FACTS ERISA governs the administration of employee benefit plans With the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in by imposing on employers and other plan administrators a 1938, federal courts abolished the procedural distinction between fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of plan participants.
  • Advisory Opinions Policy

    Advisory Opinions Policy

    BILLING CODE: 4810-AM-P BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 12 CFR Chapter X [Docket No. CFPB-2020-0019] Advisory Opinions Policy AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. ACTION: Procedural rule. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing its final Advisory Opinions Policy (Advisory Opinions Policy), which sets forth procedures to facilitate the submission by interested parties of requests that the Bureau issue advisory opinions, in the form of interpretive rules, to resolve regulatory uncertainty, and the manner in which the Bureau will evaluate and respond to such requests. DATES: The Advisory Opinions Policy is applicable on November 30, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the Advisory Opinions Policy contact Jaydee DiGiovanni and Shelley Thompson, Counsels; and Adetola Adenuga, Regulatory Implementation and Guidance Specialist, at 202-435-7158. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 22, 2020, the Bureau published and sought public comment on a proposal (Advisory Opinions Proposal) for a new Bureau policy on advisory opinions and simultaneously launched a pilot advisory opinion program (Pilot Advisory Opinions program).1 This notice finalizes the Advisory Opinions Proposal as the Advisory 1 See Advisory Opinions Pilot, 85 FR 37394 (June 22, 2020). 1 Opinions Policy (Advisory Opinions Policy). Part I provides some background on the Bureau’s guidance functions and related statutory authorities. Part II sets out the final text of the Advisory Opinions Policy. Part III reviews the comments received on the Advisory Opinions Proposal and describes the changes the Bureau has made in the final Advisory Opinions Policy.