DOCSLIB.ORG

2020 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2020 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, Boston, Massachusetts 2020 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary Two hundred and thirty years ago, our first New York, assisted by his colleague William Chief Justice, John Jay, convened the Supreme Cushing. (Justices John Rutledge and James Court of the United States for its inaugural sit- Iredell, who were not present for the first ses- ting. With no cases yet filed, Jay and his col- sion of the Supreme Court, were assigned to the leagues turned promptly to circuit riding. That Southern Circuit, which required 1,800 miles of duty, assigned by Congress, required them to travel—providing yet another lesson in what travel around the young country and preside happens when you miss a meeting.) over trials in the lower federal courts. Jay took America was at the time suffering under the the Eastern Circuit, covering his home state of spread of influenza and, later, yellow fever. 2020 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 1 of 7 When he arrived in Hartford, Connecticut, in the greatest challenge was faced by the “first to April 1790, Jay noted that “almost every Fam- fight” in the judicial family—the trial courts ily here is down with the Influenza—some old and their staffs. people have died with it.” He later wrote his Trial courts deal most directly with peo- wife Sarah that “I have travelled in some very ple—lawyers, of course, but also litigants, wit- disagreeable Days—the whole Country has nesses, jurors, court reporters, probation and been sick, and indeed is much so yet.” Presi- pretrial services officers, interpreters, security dent Washington himself fell ill with a severe personnel, and members of the public who have case of influenza that May. Three years later, important rights of access to proceedings. Trial Jay had to adjourn the Court from sitting in judges have obligations under the Constitution Philadelphia due to the yellow fever epidemic and other laws to deal promptly with cases, es- that killed 5,000 of the city’s 50,000 residents. pecially with respect to criminal filings. And As the Reporter of the Supreme Court recorded, they have had to work out how to carry on their “The Malignant Fever, which during this year, vital functions consistent with the best available raged in the City of Philadelphia, dispersed the public health guidance. great body of its inhabitants, and proved fatal to To this end, judges who serve on the Judi- thousands, interrupted, likewise, the business of cial Conference of the United States and its the Courts; and I cannot trace that any important committees—in particular, the Committee on cause was agitated in the present Term.” Rules of Practice and Procedure—sprang into Advancements in medicine have over time action to make possible video and audio confer- diminished the pandemic threat. The last encing in certain criminal proceedings, with nationwide crisis came with the virulent out- help from Congress through authorization in break of the Spanish flu in 1918, which led to the CARES Act. By April, judges around the cancellation of Supreme Court sessions. But country were guiding critical court functions for more than a century, the courts have not had from their home offices—or their kitchen ta- to respond to such a widespread public health bles. emergency. Hearings of all sorts went virtual. Judges Until now. For the past ten months, it has quickly (or at least eventually) learned to use a been all hands on deck for the courts, as our wide range of available audio and video confer- branch of government confronted the COVID- encing tools. But this effort required more than 19 pandemic. In March, the Supreme Court just new technology. Judges needed to adopt asked employees to work remotely. We moved innovative approaches to conduct court pro- the weight of our attorney filings and opinion ceedings. In bankruptcy court, for example, a announcements online. And in May we held complex case can involve 100 participating at- oral argument by teleconference for the first torneys. Judges worked with court staff to ad- time. Although we look forward to returning to mit participants to virtual hearings, manage the normal sittings in our Courtroom, we have been orderly flow of work, and ensure that public ac- able to stay current in our work. Other appellate cess did not endanger public health. They courts around the country have responded with needed to consider new approaches to filing similar considered flexibility. But once again documents and maintaining information secu- 2020 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 2 of 7 rity. Much of this work is not glamorous, but it All this is a credit to judges and court staff, is essential, and it got done. but also to the citizens who serve as jurors. Proceedings involving detained defendants Judges from around the country report that, present special challenges. Judges, lawyers, where jury trials have resumed, responses to and criminal defendants must interact through jury summonses have met or exceeded their initial appearances, detention hearings, arraign- high hopes for the public’s willingness to par- ments, and sentencings. The courts have re- ticipate in the legal system during these very sponded to the threat of COVID by developing challenging times. new partnerships with law enforcement, correc- Creativity has been the key to other kinds of tions officers, and counsel to ensure that de- court proceedings, too. District judges are priv- fendants have virtual access to courts and their ileged to perform naturalization ceremonies and lawyers. welcome new citizens. But the coronavirus has Courts have used every available avenue to made it difficult to conduct traditional court- prepare for resumption of jury trials, the bed- house ceremonies safely. So judges in Michi- rock of fairness in our system of justice. Judges gan and Florida held drive-through naturaliza- and court staff have reconfigured spaces in tions. Others, in Iowa and Minnesota, moved courtrooms around the country. Many courts the ceremonies outdoors. They were borrowing have repurposed their largest courtrooms for a practice from a century ago, when San Fran- physical distancing and reconfigured jury boxes cisco courts held proceedings outdoors during to extend into public gallery areas. Courts have the Spanish flu pandemic. installed plexiglass in key spaces to physically None of this would be achievable without separate participants and have deployed high- unsung heroes in the judicial branch and efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters to min- throughout government. Our information tech- imize the risk of virus transmission. Contact nology professionals have made possible re- tracing plans are in place. Proceedings for mote work that has allowed judges to perform grand juries and jury voir dire, which usually their duties safely. Our facilities teams, our entail significantly larger gatherings than the deputy marshals and court security officers, and standard 12-person jury in a federal trial, are the building staff employed by or contracted likewise being modified for safety. through the General Services Administration Police Court session held in open air to protect against the U.S. District Court naturalization held in open air to protect against influenza pandemic, San Francisco, California, 1918 the coronavirus pandemic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2020 2020 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 3 of 7 have helped ensure that our courts could meet fering caused by the pandemic. Like others the unusual challenges of this past year. throughout the country, judiciary employees State courts—responsible for the vast bulk have contended with illness and loss. My of judicial proceedings across the Nation— thoughts are with them. have also responded to the present emergency This year, more than ever, I am privileged with professionalism and care. By way of ex- and honored to thank all of the judges, court ample, the National Center for State Courts staff, and other judicial branch personnel gave its 2020 William H. Rehnquist Award for throughout the Nation for their outstanding Judicial Excellence to a judge who had con- service. ducted the Nation’s first-ever remote jury trial. Best wishes—and good health—to all in the She has been generous with her peers through- New Year. out the country in helping them solve problems and carry forward the work of our legal system. John G. Roberts, Jr. In focusing on the dedicated work in courts, Chief Justice of the United States I do not want to minimize the hardships and suf- December 31, 2020 2020 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 4 of 7 Appendix Workload of the Courts In the 12-month period ending September 30, 2020, the number of cases filed in the Su- Supreme Court preme Court fell compared to the 2018 Term, Cases Argued as did cases filed in the U.S. courts of appeals, 200 175 bankruptcy courts, probation offices, and pre- 150 94 87 trial services system. New filings in district 100 75 73 courts were nominally greater, but excluding 50 filings connected to a single multidistrict liti- 0 gation, they were also lower than the prior OT 84 OT 94 OT 04 OT 14 OT 19 year. Filings generally decreased with the on- set of the coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, leading to lower annualized rates. Term to 1,481 filings in the 2019 Term. During the 2019 Term, 73 cases were argued and 69 The Supreme Court of the were disposed of in 53 signed opinions, United States compared to 73 cases argued and 69 disposed The total number of cases filed in the of in 66 signed opinions in the 2018 Term. The Supreme Court decreased from 6,442 filings in Court also issued four per curiam decisions in the 2018 Term to 5,411 filings in the 2019 argued cases during the 2019 Term.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • File Its Certiorari Petition Until August 2020,1 and Therefore This Court Likely Would Not Determine Whether to Grant Or Deny That Petition Until at Least
    No. 19A1035 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______________ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Applicant, v. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES _______________ On Application for Stay of the Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit _______________ OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF MANDATE _______________ Annie L. Owens Douglas N. Letter Joshua A. Geltzer Counsel of Record Mary B. McCord Todd B. Tatelman Daniel B. Rice Megan Barbero INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL Josephine Morse ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION Adam A. Grogg Georgetown University Law Center Jonathan B. Schwartz 600 New Jersey Avenue N.W. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, D.C. 20001 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (202) 662-9042 219 Cannon House Building [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-9700 [email protected] Counsel for Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 9 I. This Court Should Deny A Stay Of The Mandate Pending Certiorari ............. 9 A. DOJ Cannot Show A Reasonable Probability That This Court Will Grant Certiorari ..................................................................................... 10 B. DOJ Cannot Establish A Fair Prospect That
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court and the New Equity
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 68 | Issue 4 Article 1 5-2015 The uprS eme Court and the New Equity Samuel L. Bray Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Samuel L. Bray, The uS preme Court and the New Equity, 68 Vanderbilt Law Review 997 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol68/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 68 MAY 2015 NUMBER 4 ARTICLES The Supreme Court and the New Equity Samuel L. Bray* The line between law and equity has largely faded away. Even in remedies, where the line persists, the conventional scholarly wisdom favors erasing it. Yet something surprisinghas happened. In a series of cases over the last decade and a half, the U.S. Supreme Court has acted directly contrary to this conventional wisdom. These cases range across many areas of substantive law-from commercial contracts and employee benefits to habeas and immigration, from patents and copyright to environmental law and national security. Throughout these disparate areas, the Court has consistently reinforced the line between legal and equitable remedies, and it has treated equitable remedies as having distinctive powers and limitations. This Article describes and begins to evaluate the Court's new equity cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Working Group on Judiciary Law §470
    REPORT OF THE NYSBA WORKING GROUP ON JUDICIARY LAW §470 Background Judiciary Law §470 provides: A person, regularly admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor, in the courts of record of this state, whose office for the transaction of law business is within the state, may practice as such attorney or counsellor, although he resides in an adjoining state. In 2009, Ekaterina Schoenefeld, an attorney licensed to practice in New York, but residing in New Jersey and having an office only in New Jersey, commenced an action in federal court in the Northern District of New York to challenge Judiciary Law §470 under the United States Constitution. In 2011, the District Court found §470 unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.1 The Attorney General appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit certified the question of what constituted an office within the state to the New York Court of Appeals.2 The Court of Appeals accepted the certification3 and, interpreting the statute for the first time, held that §470 “requires nonresident attorneys to maintain a physical office in New York.”4 In its opinion, the Court of Appeals recognized that the State “does have an interest in ensuring that personal service can be accomplished on nonresident attorneys admitted to practice here.” However, the Court acknowledged that currently “there would appear to be adequate measures in place relating to service on nonresident attorneys” under the CPLR and its own Court rules and that the Legislature could take additional action if necessary. On June 30, 2015, while the appeal was pending before the Second Circuit, then NYSBA President David Miranda appointed the Working Group to address the issue of the requirements on non-resident attorneys to practice in New York and to make a recommendation once the Second Circuit determined the issue of the statute’s constitutionality.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?
    EQUITY IN THE AMERICAN COURTS AND IN THE WORLD COURT: DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? I. INTRODUCTION Equity, as a legal concept, has enjoyed sustained acceptance by lawyers throughout history. It has been present in the law of ancient civilizations' and continues to exist in modem legal systems.2 But equity is no longer a concept confined exclusively to local or national adjudication. Today, equity shows itself to be a vital part of international law.' The International Court of Justice--"the most visible, and perhaps hegemonic, tribunal in the sphere of public international law" 4-has made a significant contribution to the delimitation,5 development of equity. Particularly in cases involving maritime 6 equity has frequently been applied by the Court to adjudicate disputes. Equity is prominent in national legal systems and has become increas- ingly important in international law. It is useful, perhaps essential, for the international lawyer to have a proper understanding of it. Yet the meaning of equity remains elusive. "A lawyer asked to define 'equity' will not have an easy time of it; the defimition of equity, let alone the term's application in the field of international law, is notoriously uncertain, though its use is rife."7 Through a comparative analysis, this note seeks to provide a more precise understanding of the legal concept of equity as it relates to two distinct systems oflaw: the American and the international. To compare the equity administered by the American courts with that administered by the World Court, this note 1. See sources cited infra notes 10, 22.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule-Of-Law.Pdf
    RULE OF LAW Analyze how landmark Supreme Court decisions maintain the rule of law and protect minorities. About These Resources Rule of law overview Opening questions Discussion questions Case Summaries Express Unpopular Views: Snyder v. Phelps (military funeral protests) Johnson v. Texas (flag burning) Participate in the Judicial Process: Batson v. Kentucky (race and jury selection) J.E.B. v. Alabama (gender and jury selection) Exercise Religious Practices: Church of the Lukumi-Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (controversial religious practices) Wisconsin v. Yoder (compulsory education law and exercise of religion) Access to Education: Plyer v. Doe (immigrant children) Brown v. Board of Education (separate is not equal) Cooper v. Aaron (implementing desegregation) How to Use These Resources In Advance 1. Teachers/lawyers and students read the case summaries and questions. 2. Participants prepare presentations of the facts and summaries for selected cases in the classroom or courtroom. Examples of presentation methods include lectures, oral arguments, or debates. In the Classroom or Courtroom Teachers/lawyers, and/or judges facilitate the following activities: 1. Presentation: rule of law overview 2. Interactive warm-up: opening discussion 3. Teams of students present: case summaries and discussion questions 4. Wrap-up: questions for understanding Program Times: 50-minute class period; 90-minute courtroom program. Timing depends on the number of cases selected. Presentations maybe made by any combination of teachers, lawyers, and/or students and student teams, followed by the discussion questions included in the wrap-up. Preparation Times: Teachers/Lawyers/Judges: 30 minutes reading Students: 60-90 minutes reading and preparing presentations, depending on the number of cases and the method of presentation selected.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Courts Versus Supreme Courts
    SYMPOSIUM Constitutional courts versus supreme courts Lech Garlicki* Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/5/1/44/722508 by guest on 30 September 2021 Constitutional courts exist in most of the civil law countries of Westem Europe, and in almost all the new democracies in Eastem Europe; even France has developed its Conseil Constitutionnel into a genuine constitutional jurisdiction. While their emergence may be regarded as one of the most successful improvements on traditional European concepts of democracy and the rule of law, it has inevitably given rise to questions about the distribution of power at the supreme judicial level. As constitutional law has come to permeate the entire structure of the legal system, it has become impossible to maintain a fi rm delimitation between the functions of the constitutional court and those of ordinary courts. This article looks at various confl icts arising between the higher courts of Germany, Italy, Poland, and France, and concludes that, in both positive and negative lawmaking, certain tensions are bound to exist as a necessary component of centralized judicial review. 1 . The Kelsenian model: Parallel supreme jurisdictions 1.1 The model The centralized Kelsenian system of judicial review is built on two basic assu- mptions. It concentrates the power of constitutional review within a single judicial body, typically called a constitutional court, and it situates that court outside the traditional structure of the judicial branch. While this system emerged more than a century after the United States’ system of diffused review, it has developed — particularly in Europe — into a widely accepted version of constitutional protection and control.
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Law Jurisdiction of the United States Courts
    YALE LAW JOURNAL VOL. XVII NOVEMBER, 1907 No. i THE COMMON LAW JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS To me it seems clear, beyond question, that neither in the Constitution, nor in the statutes enacted by Congress, nor in the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States can there be found any substantial support for the proposition that, since the adoption of the Constitution, the principles of the Common Law have been wholly abrogated touching such matters as are by that instrument placed within the exclusive control of the National Goverment. (Judge Shiras in Murray v. Chicago & N. W. Rly. Co., 62 Fed. 24.) To whatever has required for its upbuilding the prolonged activity of countless men, in one generation after another, whether expressed in unconfined exertion of physical labor which produces for our astonishment a pyramid, a cathedral, or in endless mental effort which evolves for our wonder a science, an art, a system of law, men have always paid respect. As conferred upon a system of law, that respect has always, in English-speaking countries, been acorded to the Common Law. Law exists for justice, and Webster said: "The Common Law is a fcuntain of justice, perennial and per- petual." Rightly did he as a representative American pay this tribute, for to the founders ot this government there never had been another system of law. They were, in large measure, descendants of those Englishmen who, centuries back, had ceaselessly petitioned for YALE LAW JOURNAL recognition of their rights of person and property; had finally obtained them, and from that foundation had ever thereafter through their courts received justice as their due.
    [Show full text]
  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court The text of the Rome Statute reproduced herein was originally circulated as document A/CONF.183/9 of 17 July 1998 and corrected by procès-verbaux of 10 November 1998, 12 July 1999, 30 November 1999, 8 May 2000, 17 January 2001 and 16 January 2002. The amendments to article 8 reproduce the text contained in depositary notification C.N.651.2010 Treaties-6, while the amendments regarding articles 8 bis, 15 bis and 15 ter replicate the text contained in depositary notification C.N.651.2010 Treaties-8; both depositary communications are dated 29 November 2010. The table of contents is not part of the text of the Rome Statute adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998. It has been included in this publication for ease of reference. Done at Rome on 17 July 1998, in force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544, Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations, http://treaties.un.org. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Published by the International Criminal Court ISBN No. 92-9227-232-2 ICC-PIOS-LT-03-002/15_Eng Copyright © International Criminal Court 2011 All rights reserved International Criminal Court | Po Box 19519 | 2500 CM | The Hague | The Netherlands | www.icc-cpi.int Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Table of Contents PREAMBLE 1 PART 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURT 2 Article 1 The Court 2 Article 2 Relationship of the Court with the United Nations 2 Article 3 Seat of the Court 2 Article 4 Legal status and powers of the Court 2 PART 2.
    [Show full text]
  • WHICH COURT IS BINDING?1 Binding Vs
    WHICH COURT IS BINDING?1 Binding vs. Persuasive Cases © 2017 The Writing Center at GULC. All rights reserved. You have found the perfect case: the facts are similar to yours and the law is on point. But does the court before which you are practicing (or, in law school, the jurisdiction to which you have been assigned) have to follow the case? Stare decisis is the common law principle that requires courts to follow precedents set by other courts. Under stare decisis, courts are obliged to follow some precedents, but not others. Because of the many layers of our federal system, it can be difficult to figure out which decisions bind a given court. This handout is designed to help you determine which decisions are mandatory and which are persuasive on the court before which you are practicing. Binding versus Persuasive Authority: What’s the Difference? • Binding authority, also referred to as mandatory authority, refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that a court must follow because they bind the court. • Persuasive authority refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that the court may follow but does not have to follow. To get started, ask yourself two questions: 1) Are the legal issues in your case governed by state or federal law? and 2) Which court are you in? Once you know the answers to these questions, you are well on your way to determining whether a decision is mandatory or persuasive. Step 1: Are the Legal Issues in Your Case Governed by Federal or State Law? First, a lawyer needs to know the facts and issues of the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Law, Federal Courts, and Binding and Persuasive Authority
    1 Federal Law, Federal Courts, and Binding and Persuasive Authority © 2013 The Writing Center at GULC. All rights reserved. The United States is a common law jurisdiction. Common law countries generally give significant weight to prior judicial opinions. By adhering to the outcomes relating to questions of law of prior decisions, common law judges build a body of jurisprudence that, hopefully, leads to consistent and predictable outcomes. In this way, adherence to binding or persuasive judicial opinions, serves the same purpose as stare decisis: “[The] promot[ion of] the evenhanded, 2 predictable, and consistent development of legal principles.” Not all prior opinions are created equal, however. Sometimes prior decisions are binding on courts; courts must follow these binding precedents. In other instances, prior decisions are 3 only persuasive; they provide good rules of thumb, but do not necessarily dictate the result. Whether a case is binding or persuasive can make all of the difference. As such, this handout will first describe the various relationships of federal courts with other federal courts and how that affects whether law is binding or persuasive. This will teach the legal writer when to recognize whether certain case law is binding or not. Second, this handout will briefly explain different ways to deal with binding precedent. This will teach the legal writer how to work around seemingly binding precedent that undermines the proposition that the legal writer is attempting to establish. Binding Law and Federal Courts The System To understand when an interpretation of law is binding and when it is not in federal court, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the federal court system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Court of Justice of the European Union
    THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the EU’s seven institutions. It consists of two courts of law: the Court of Justice proper and the General Court. It is responsible for the jurisdiction of the European Union. The courts ensure the correct interpretation and application of primary and secondary EU law in the EU. They review the legality of acts of the EU institutions and decide whether Member States have fulfilled their obligations under primary and secondary law. The Court of Justice also provides interpretations of EU law when so requested by national judges. COURT OF JUSTICE A. Legal basis — Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Articles 251 to 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 136 of the Euratom Treaty, and Protocol No 3 annexed to the Treaties on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Statute’); — Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; — EU Budget (Section 4). B. Composition and Statute 1. Membership a. Number of members (Article 19 of the TEU and Article 252 of the TFEU) One judge per Member State (27). The Court is assisted by eight advocates-general, whose number may be increased by the Council if the Court so requests. The judges of the Court of Justice elect from among themselves a President and a Vice-President for a renewable term of three years.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court/Docketpdf/19/19
    No. 19-292 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ ROXANNE TORRES, Petitioner, v. JANICE MADRID, ET AL., Respondents. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ___________ BRIEF OF CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ___________ ELIZABETH B. WYDRA BRIANNE J. GOROD* DAVID H. GANS BRIAN R. FRAZELLE CLARE E. RIVA** CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER 1200 18th Street NW Suite 501 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 296-6889 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae February 6, 2020 * Counsel of Record ** Not admitted in D.C.; supervised by principals of the firm TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ...................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................ 1 ARGUMENT ......................................................... 5 I. The Common Law’s Expansive Definition of “Arrest” Should Inform the Meaning of “Seizure” Under the Fourth Amendment ... 5 II. In Founding-Era Common Law, An Arrest Included Any Use of Physical Force to Subdue or Detain, Whether or Not the Subject Was Ultimately Captured .............. 15 III. Applying the Common Law Rule Will Also Vindicate the Framers’ Understanding that Civil Damages Actions Would Be a Key Deterrent Against Unreasonable Intrusions on Persons and Property .......... 21 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 25 (i) ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Barrett v. Copeland, 18 Vt. 67 (1844) ...................................... 23 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) ................................ 8, 22 Burlingham v. Wylee, 2 Root 152 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1794) ....... 23 California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) ................................ passim Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct.
    [Show full text]