Many cities have struggled with the effects of foreclosures. But given the complex mix of state laws that often governs the issue, how much authority do local governments have in this area? A First Circuit case, Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield, No. 12-1917 (Nov. 22, 2013) addresses that question. Six banks sued the City of Springfield, Massachusetts, after it had adopted two foreclosure ordinances. The ordinances require: banks to maintain property during the foreclosure process and to provide a $10,000 cash bond to the City; and banks and...
Yesterday, in a move with significant implications for appellate practice, the U.S. Senate modified its filibuster rules to allow a simple majority to approve individuals nominated to serve on district and appellate courts. This is likely to have a direct impact on President Obama's recent nominees to the D.C. Circuit: Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard, and Robert Wilkins. Ezra Klein provides 9 reasons why the change is a huge deal as a general matter. And Steve Klepper of the Maryland Appellate Blog suggests that the change may also have a...
A recent cert petition raises an important question about how the federal Constitution limits State and local taxing authority. In Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the dormant Commerce Clause requires every state and subdivision to give its residents a full tax credit for all income taxes that they pay in another state or subdivision. The U.S. Supreme Court has never applied the dormant Commerce Clause to reach that result, and it appears to conflict with...
As a very general rule, arguments in a brief should appear in order of descending power or importance. A judge may stop reading on reaching a clearly winning argument or on deciding that the opening briefing is so weak as not to justify more time. Either way, there is no benefit in saving the best for last. There are a few exceptions: Jurisdictional arguments normally go first, even if they are not the strongest. If the jurisdictional argument is a winner,...
Here are published decisions involving local governments from the federal appellate courts from November 11, 2013 through November 15, 2013: First Circuit Winslow v. Aroostook County, No. 13-1319 (Nov. 15, 2013) (finding Winslow is not a whistleblower under Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act). Second Circuit Lynch v. City of New York, No. 12-3089 (Nov. 15, 2013) (affirming summary judgment for NYPD in Fourth-Amendment challenge to City policy requiring breathalyzer test for any officer whose firearm discharge results in death or injury; testing under the policy...
One of the significant Supreme Court cases affecting local governments this term has been resolved through settlement. The case is Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action. It asked whether a plaintiff bringing a claim under the Fair Housing Act must show intentional discrimination, or whether a "disparate impact" is sufficient. This marks the second time that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari on the question but then not been able to resolve it. Magner v. Gallagher was also settled last year....
Careful proofing is as important as excellent writing. Errors and omissions slip into briefs so easily, especially if several people are working on it. There are many good tips for proofing, all best employed a day or more after the writing is done: Print and proof the document in hard copy; Read the document aloud, forcing yourself to acknowledge each word, or read with your finger pointing at each word; Never try to proof for everything at once—proof the text, then the headings,...
Here are published decisions involving local governments from the federal appellate courts from November 4, 2013 through November 8, 2013: Seventh Circuit Brumfield v. City of Chicago, No. 11-2265 (Nov. 6, 2013) (finding that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to public-employment discrimination claims). See our coverage here. Balthazar v. City of Chicago, No. 12-3378 (Nov. 8, 2013) (affirming dismissal of 1983 action against officers for alleged unreasonable apartment search after mistaken opening of wrong apartment). See our coverage here. ...
In Balthazar v. City of Chicago, No. 12-3378 (Nov. 8, 2013), the Seventh Circuit addressed an interesting Fourth-Amendment question: is it a "search" for officers to mistakenly open the wrong apartment door and glance inside? Judge Posner said that in this case, it likely was not: Police forced open the door of a residence by mistake, realized their mistake immediately (in fact before the door opened—for remember that Beckman tried to check the forward motion of the battering ram), and left immediately....