Iowa PreLaw Land

Featuring Legal Articles and Information from College Students attending school in Iowa Presented by Evan Guthrie Law Firm

[iowaprelawland]

Shein Faces an Unusual RICO Battle over Copyright Allegations

By Sonja Cutts, University of Iowa Class of 2026

September 4, 2023

Those who are most familiar with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act as the statute used to prosecute motorcycle gangs and crime families (1) might be surprised to learn that Shein was recently hit with a RICO suit. While the fast fashion retailer is constantly embroiled in scandal due to its alleged labor violations, tax avoidance, sale of hazardous products, and negative environmental impact, (2) it on the surface doesn’t seem like one of criminal organizations the RICO Act was created to stop. (3)

Nevertheless, on July 11 three independent designers filed a lawsuit accusing Shein of creating and selling “exact copies of their creative work.” (2) They claim that by doing so, Shein has violated section 1962(c) of the RICO Act, which states “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.” (4)

So, what exactly is racketeering activity? Turns out, it can be a lot of things—including copyright infringement. In 1996, the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) added “criminal copyright infringement” to the list of racketeering activities that can be charged under the RICO Act. (5) That list is currently thirty-five offenses long and contains everything from murder to mail fraud. (2) But committing one act of copyright infringement would not make Shein a racketeer. Racketeering is not a single criminal act, but a pattern of acts committed as part of an organized scheme. (6) To be found guilty or liable under the RICO Act, a person must commit at least two acts of racketeering activity within ten years of one another. (7)

The recent lawsuit against Shein goes even further, claiming that Shein stole four designs from three designers over the span of a few years. (2) Still, an important question remains unanswered. If these three designers believe themselves to be victims of copyright infringement, why don’t they individually sue Shein for taking their designs? Why combine their cases and turn them into a RICO suit?

To answer that question, we must look back before the 1970 enactment of RICO. In those times, prosecutors had trouble tying mob bosses to the crimes of their subordinates. The RICO Act addressed this problem by allowing prosecutors to connect multiple defendants to multiple crimes that they were either directly or indirectly involved in through their participation in a shared enterprise. (8) This aspect of the law allows the plaintiffs of Krista Perry et al v. Shein Distribution Corporation et al, who describe Shein as “a dizzying and ever-changing decentralized amalgamation of companies,” to sue four of those companies at once. (2)

But if the RICO Act was created to help prosecutors crack down on mob activity, why are three citizens able to use it to sue a fashion retailer for copyright infringement? The answer lies in section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows victims of racketeering to sue for damages in civil court. Because of this civil component, the designers suing Shein “shall recover threefold” the damages they sustained if they are able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that by copying their designs, the company engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. (9)

However, this lawsuit may not make it to court. When the magazine Complex interviewed Fordham Fashion Law Institute founder and director Susan Scafidi about its merits, she seemed skeptical. Speaking on the potential of applying the RICO Act to fast fashion companies—many of which are frequently accused of copyright infringement—she said that it would call for “a bit of a stretch in the sense that Shein and its first-gen fast fashion predecessors like Forever 21 are not primarily engaged in counterfeiting or copying.” (3)

Even the lawsuit itself does not describe Shein as a primarily criminal enterprise, instead saying that copyright infringement is “an integral part of the overall business model.” While a more traditional fashion company would have people involved at multiple stages of the design process attempting to avoid intellectual property liability—i.e., designers creating unique products and lawyers conducting clearance searches on them—the lawsuit alleges that Shein follows a different, “ask forgiveness, not permission” strategy.

Specifically, it claims that the retailer relies on an algorithm to design the thousands of new items Shein lists for sale every day. When this algorithm designs a product, the company produces a small amount of that item without checking if it’s an exact copy of someone else’s work. They then wait and see if anyone claims it as a stolen design, settling for the tiniest amount possible if so. As the lawsuit puts it, settlements are “baked in as a tolerated cost of doing business.”  (2)

If these allegations are true, this RICO suit will likely disappear before it reaches the courtroom. Discussing the possibility of Shein’s legal defeat, Scafidi told Complex, “I think that the more likely outcome of this case is a settlement.” (3) In other words, once the hubbub over Shein being sued like a mobster has settled down, business will likely continue as usual at the world’s largest fashion retailer.

______________________________________________________________

Koppel, N. (2011, January 20). A Short History of RICO. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704881304576094110829882704

The Free Law Project. (2023, July 11). COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-35648032 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiffs Krista Perry, Jay Baron, Larissa Martinez. [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.891125/gov.uscourts.cacd.891125.1.0_2.pdf

DeStefano, M. (2023, July 18). Shein Got Hit With a RICO Lawsuit. How Is That Possible? Complex. https://www.complex.com/style/a/mike-destefano/shein-rico-lawsuit-explained

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (1970). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter96&edition=prelim

S.1136 - 104th Congress (1995-1996): Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996. (1996, July 2). https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/1136

Lou, M., & Griggs, B. (2019, March 26). What is racketeering? The crime, explained. CNN. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/03/26/us/what-is-racketeering-trnd/index.html

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1970). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter96&edition=prelim

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Law. Justia. (n.d.). https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/rico/

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (1970). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter96&edition=prelim

[iowaprelawland]

Can Anyone Reform the Supreme Court?

By Sonja Cutts, University of Iowa Class of 2026

August 9, 2023

On June 30th, a Supreme Court led by a conservative supermajority ended its term, fittingly, with two 6-3 blows to progressives. In Biden v. Nebraska, the Court struck down Joe Biden’s student debt relief program by ruling that the Secretary of Education did not have the authority to establish it. (1) The same day, they sided with the petitioner in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a graphic designer who did not want to create websites for same-sex weddings. (2) Many Democratic lawmakers were angered by these decisions, which capped off a term full of divisive rulings on everything from affirmative action (3) to water rights. (4)

However, backlash against the Supreme Court during its most recent term was not strictly limited to its actions inside the courtroom. On April 6th, ProPublica exposed numerous undisclosed luxury vacations taken by Justice Clarence Thomas and paid for by billionaire Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. (5) Less than three months later, the same newsroom revealed that Justice Samuel Alito had also taken an undisclosed luxury vacation paid for by Paul Singer, another Republican megadonor. This revelation was especially impactful since Alito did not recuse himself from later cases in which Singer’s hedge fund was involved. (6)

In light of these controversies, many progressives are calling for an overhaul of the nation’s highest court. Given the importance of separation of powers in the United States, such an overhaul would be difficult to accomplish. However, the legislative and executive branches do have some legal wiggle room through which they could hypothetically reform the Court. In this moment of scrutiny, it’s worth looking into three of the most talked-about pathways available to them: court expansion, term limits for justices, and the implementation of a code of conduct.

Court Expansion

In April 2021, Biden established The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States through executive order. Eight months later, the bipartisan group of experts and academics released a 294-page report evaluating several proposals for Supreme Court reform—including increasing the number of Supreme Court justices. Since the Constitution does not specify an exact number of justices for the Court, the report concludes that “Congress has broad authority to establish and change the Court’s size.” In fact, Congress has expanded and contracted the number of Supreme Court justices numerous times throughout history. However, the current size of nine has been unchanged since 1869. (7)

To increase the number of justices, a bill would have to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law. Such a bill—dubbed the Judiciary Act of 2023—was recently reintroduced in the wake of ProPublica’s reporting on Thomas. This measure would add four more seats to the Supreme Court, expanding its number of justices to thirteen. In a press conference, Senator Ed Markey, the bill’s sponsor, declared that “Each scandal uncovered, each norm broken, each precedent-shattering ruling delivered is a reminder that we must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court. It is time we expand the Court.” (8)

However, since Markey’s bill would disrupt the Court’s current conservative supermajority, it has little chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Even if it did pass, it would still need to be signed by Biden, who as recently as June 29th said, “I think if we start the process of trying to expand the court, we're going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not healthy.” (9) Court expansion does not currently appear to be a feasible method of reform.

Term Limits

A different potential reform is the implementation of term limits for Supreme Court justices. The lifelong appointments justices currently serve have led to concerns about the impact of aging justices on the Court's composition and the potential for undue partisan influence. Taking note of these criticisms, the final report from the Presidential Commission on SCOTUS evaluates the possibility of establishing non-renewable term limits for the Court. They point out that these limits could be imposed by Congress one of two ways: either through a statute or a constitutional amendment. (7)

Lawmakers are currently pursuing the statutory method—the far easier option. After the Court struck down Joe Biden’s student debt relief program, Representatives Ro Khanna and Don Beyer reintroduced The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act. This bill would impose eighteen-year non-renewable term limits on any Supreme Court justice appointed after its enactment. (10) Initially introduced in 2020, the bill marked the first ever attempt to establish Supreme Court term limits through statute, instead of constitutional amendment. (11)

There’s good reason for this bill’s novelty. The Commission’s report points out that the statutory method risks infringing on judicial independence. If a law enacting term limits was deemed constitutional, the legislative branch could hypothetically start using bills to alter the Supreme Court a great number of ways. Since amendments are far more difficult to pass than bills, a situation in which they are used by Congress to manipulate the Court is much harder to picture. (7) However, this need for an amendment also makes term limits one of the most challenging Supreme Court reforms to achieve. Therefore, it appears unlikely they will come to be at any point in the foreseeable future.

Code of Conduct

A more moderate reform is creating a code of conduct for the Court. Currently, all state and federal judges in the U.S.—with the notable exception of the nine Supreme Court justices—are bound by a formal ethics code.This lack of a code has led to worries about poor conduct among Supreme Court justices. The recent reveal of Thomas and Alito’s undisclosed vacations has only increased these worries.

Like term limits, there are two potential paths to an ethics code. As the final report from the Presidential Commission on SCOTUS explains, “The Court could internally adopt a code, or Congress could externally impose a code upon the Court.” It argues that though the first option raises no constitutional problems, the second could if its demands “encroach on the Court’s constitutionally exclusive judicial decisionmaking function.” (7) Still, the Commission writes far more favorably about this reform than the previous two mentioned.

However, while the Commission appears supportive of an ethics code, Republican lawmakers do not. On July 20th, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on whether to advance the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act (SCERT Act). Among other reforms, this bill would instruct the Supreme Court to create a code of conduct for itself. It passed narrowly along party lines in the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee but faces long odds in the House. (12) For now, a code of conduct appears out of reach.

Will Reform Ever Happen?

Movements for any of these reforms will likely have to take place without the support of Biden. Over a year and a half after his Commission released their final report, he has yet to back any of the reforms they analyzed or even comment publicly about the contents of the report. Still, many lawmakers are pushing forward without him. The Judiciary Act of 2023, The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, and the SCERT Act all show how fed up some members of Congress are with the high court. We can only wait and see if their anger turns into concrete reforms.

______________________________________________________________

Biden v. Nebraska. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 26, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-506

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 26, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-476

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 26, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199

Arizona v. Navajo Nation. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 26, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1484

Kaplan, J., Elliott, J., & Mierjeski, A. (2023, April 6). Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire. ProPublica. http://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

Elliott, J., Kaplan, J., & Mierjeski, A. (2023, June 20). Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court. ProPublica. http://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court

Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Final Report. (2021, December 11). Wikisource. https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Presidential_Commission_on_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_Final_Report&oldid=11941710

Sen. Markey, Rep. Johnson Announce Legislation To Expand Supreme Court, Restore Its Legitimacy, Alongside Sen. Smith, Reps. Bush And Schiff. (2023, May 16). Senate.gov. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/05/16/2023/sen-markey-rep-johnson-announce-legislation-to-expand-supreme-court-restore-its-legitimacy-alongside-sen-smith-reps-bush-and-schiff

Lebowitz, M. (2023, June 29). Biden says it would be a “mistake” to try to expand the Supreme Court. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-interviewed-msnbc-scotus-decision-rcna91871

Khanna and Beyer Reintroduce SCOTUS Term Limits Bill Following the Court Blocking Student Debt Relief. (2023, June 30). Congressman Ro Khanna. https://khanna.house.gov/media/press-releases/khanna-and-beyer-reintroduce-scotus-term-limits-bill-following-court-blocking

First-Ever Measure to End Life Tenure on the Supreme Court Via Statute, Not Amendment, to Be Introduced. (2020, September 29). Fix the Court. https://fixthecourt.com/2020/09/first-ever-measure-end-life-tenure-supreme-court-via-statute-not-amendment-introduced/

Durkee, A. (2023, July 20). Supreme Court Ethics: Senate Committee Approves Court Reforms—Here’s What Would Change. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/07/20/supreme-court-ethics-senate-committee-approves-court-reforms-heres-what-would-change/?sh=30947a7041e9

[iowaprelawland]

Can You Seek Legal Sanctuary in a Church?

By Sonja Cutts, University of Iowa Class of 2026

July 6, 2023

For the past eight years, Hilda Ramirez and her son Ivan have lived in a Sunday school classroom. The makeshift home—at Austin, Texas’s St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church—is not where the two wanted to end up when they entered the United States in 2014. Fleeing domestic violence in their native Guatemala, Ramirez and her son crossed the U.S.-Mexico border into Texas, where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained them for almost a year. Once released, they lived in a shelter for several months. However, after a judge denied their asylum case, Ramirez moved with Ivan into St. Andrew’s, fearing deportation. (1)

Over the next few years, cases like Ramirez’s multiplied as the Trump administration enacted its aggressive immigration policies. Wanting to avoid deportation, some immigrants sought refuge in supportive congregations. News of these cases led to a growing "sanctuary movement" among places of worship, which opened their doors to the undocumented. These congregations were participating in only the most recent phase of an ancient practice, finely tuned to the Trump era. (2) Now that the dust of that era is settling, it’s worth asking one important question—what legal basis, if any, does church sanctuary have in the U.S.?

The History of Church Sanctuary

To answer that question, we must first return to its origins. In ancient Greece and Rome, many temples, shrines, and altars were viewed as inviolable areas that had to remain weapons-free. As a result, some religious spaces gained reputations as sanctuaries where lawbreakers and refugees could seek protection from those who sought to apprehend or harm them. The right of fugitives to take asylum in churches continued to be respected in Rome after its conversion to Christianity, becoming enshrined in Roman imperial law in 431 CE. (3) From there, the practice carried on in Christianity for over a millennia before being seriously challenged by the religious upheaval of the 16th century. By questioning the Catholic Church’s authority, The Protestant Reformation severely damaged the practice of legal sanctuary Roman Catholicism had held up for so long. (4)

However, in more recent times the concept of church sanctuary has been revived as a response to political persecution, human rights abuses, and unjust immigration policies. The modern sanctuary movement gained momentum during the 1980s, primarily in the United States, as churches opened their doors to refugees fleeing civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala. Inspired by religious teachings about compassion, justice, and hospitality, these places of worship offered shelter from deportation. This rise in church sanctuary took place during the Reagan administration, which declined to grant asylum to many Central American applicants. Once Ronald Reagan left office, the movement died down. However, it had already laid the groundwork for its next phase, which would begin in 2016 when Donald Trump was elected president on an anti-immigration platform. (5)

So, Is Any of This Actually Legal?

While church sanctuary was once extended to a wide variety of lawbreakers, modern congregations involved in the sanctuary movement primarily focus on sheltering undocumented immigrants. Because of this focus, much of the current discussion around the legality of church sanctuary centers around immigration law. Technically, in the United States it is illegal to harbor someone facing deportation. The Immigration and Nationality Act, enacted in 1952, makes it a federal crime to “knowing[ly] or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law… conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.” If convicted under this act, a person can be fined and sentenced to years in prison. (6) Additionally, there is no law prohibiting the arrest of undocumented immigrants at places of worship.

However, law enforcement and prosecutors are generally hesitant to crack down on those involved in church sanctuary. ICE is aware that their public approval will suffer if they start busting into otherwise peaceful, law-abiding places of worship and arresting those inside. (7) As a result, they generally avoid making arrests at “sensitive locations” like schools, hospitals, and churches. (8) That does not mean, though, that no one has ever faced legal trouble for sheltering immigrants in churches. In 1986, while the sanctuary movement was combating Reagan’s stringent immigration policies, a Catholic priest from Nogales, Arizona was convicted of concealing and harboring illegal aliens. (9) Despite facing prison time, he served only probation. (10)

Similar crackdowns occurred when the movement rose again to combat Trump’s immigration policies. During her years-long stay at St. Andrew’s, Ramirez was hit with massive civil fines for avoiding deportation. Starting in July 2019, the Trump Administration used a rarely enforced section of the Immigration and Nationality Act to issue large financial penalties to Ramirez and other immigrants sheltering in places of worship. However, when Joe Biden took office in 2021, his administration canceled the existing fines and stopped issuing new ones. The Biden administration also recently granted four targets of the fines—including Ramirez—temporary protection from deportation for three years. (11)

While this development is undoubtedly a victory for the sanctuary movement, one cannot help but wonder what will happen to Ramirez when her temporary protection expires. Since church sanctuary operates within an uncertain legal framework in the United States, different administrations have taken varying approaches towards it throughout the years. Though Biden is appears accepting of the practice, our next president may not be. However, given the long history of church sanctuary and its persistence over time, it is likely that the tradition will continue to endure despite the legal challenges it faces.

______________________________________________________________

Dias, I. (2019). The Fear—and Hope—of Living in Sanctuary. The Texas Observer. https://www.texasobserver.org/hilda-ramirez-sanctuary-texas/

Shimron, Y. (2017, November 29). Resisting Trump, churches give sanctuary to immigrants facing deportation. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/11/29/resisting-trump-churches-give-sanctuary-immigrants-facing-deportation/904889001/

Bond, S. (2017, March 28). Defending The Ancient Concept Of The Sanctuary City. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/03/28/defending-the-ancient-concept-of-the-sanctuary-city/?sh=73dc463b3aaa

Rabben, L. (2016). Sanctuary and Asylum: A Social and Political History. University of Washington Press.

Garcia, M. (2019, July 30). More Central American migrants take shelter in churches, recalling 1980s sanctuary movement. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/more-central-american-migrants-take-shelter-in-churches-recalling-1980s-sanctuary-movement-120535

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (1952). http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1324&num=0&edition=prelim#0-0-0-322

Hanna, J. (2017, February 17). Can churches provide legal sanctuary to undocumented immigrants? CNN https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/17/us/immigrants-sanctuary-churches-legality-trnd/

Protected Areas and Courthouse Arrests. (n.d.). U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/ero/protected-areas

Curry, B. (1986, May 2). 8 of 11 Activists Guilty in Alien Sanctuary Case : Defiant Group Says 6-Month Trial Hasn’t Ended Movement to Help Central American Refugees. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-05-02-mn-3211-story.html

Altman, M. L. (1990). The Arizona Sanctuary Case. Litigation, 16(4), 23–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29759415

Rose, J. (2023, June 21). Four immigrants who sought sanctuary in churches no longer face deportation. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/21/1183528143/four-immigrants-who-sought-sanctuary-in-churches-no-longer-face-deportation

[iowaprelawland]

Why is Elizabeth Holmes Just Now Going to Prison?

By Sonja Cutts, University of Iowa Class of 2026

June 19, 2023

Living in a country where, relatively recently, a teenager was imprisoned for three years without trial after allegedly stealing a backpack, (1) it can be shocking to learn that Elizabeth Holmes remained a free woman until May of this year. After all, the Wall Street Journal published the investigation that first exposed fraud at her health technology company Theranos nearly eight years ago, in 2015. Her indictment on wire fraud charges followed less than three years later.

In the years since that indictment, Elizabeth Holmes had enough time to have two children. Hollywood was able to depict her exploits in both a documentary—The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley (2019)—and a television miniseries—The Dropout (2022). (2) But when actress Amanda Seyfried accepted an Emmy Award for her portrayal of Holmes in that miniseries, Holmes herself had not spent one day in prison. (3)

This long period between indictment and surrender was caused by several delays—some intentional, some not—that stretched U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes into a years-long debacle. Here is a timeline detailing those many, many setbacks.

June 14, 2018: Holmes indicted on wire fraud charges

A federal grand jury returns an indictment charging Holmes with eleven counts of wire fraud in connection with Theranos. (4)

June 15, 2018: Holmes makes her initial appearance in court

The day after the indictment, Holmes appears in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and pleads not guilty to all eleven charges. She is ordered to surrender her passport and released on $500,000 bond. (5)

June 28, 2019: Judge sets a trial date of July 28, 2020

Over a year after Holmes’s indictment, Judge Edward J. Davila conducts a status hearing to set her trial date. Due to the complexity of this case, Davila schedules the trial eleven months out, so that both sides have adequate time to prepare. (6)

March 16, 2020: The district of the Holmes trial suspends all jury trials

Due to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issues a general order postponing its jury trials. (7)

Delay #1 - April 15, 2020: Holmes trial pushed back to October 27, 2020

Because of the challenges presented by COVID-19, Davlia reschedules the Holmes trial for three months in the future. (8) However, due to the anticipated length of the trial and the large crowds it will likely draw, Holmes’s legal team requests that it be delayed even further, until early 2021. (9)

Delay #2 - August 11, 2020: Holmes trial pushed back to March 19, 2021

Having listened to the concerns expressed by Holmes’s lawyers, Davila delays her trial five more months. (10)

Delay #3 - December 18, 2020: Holmes trial pushed back to July 13, 2021

Due to a surge in COVID-19 cases in California, Davila delays the Holmes trial four more months. (11)

Delay #4 - March 17, 2021: Holmes trial pushed back to August 31, 2021

After Holmes reveals to prosecutors that she is five months pregnant and due to give birth in July, Davila delays her trial six more weeks. (12)

August 31, 2021 – December 17, 2021: Trial

Over the course of a fourteen-week trial, thirty-two witnesses testify. The plaintiff and defense collectively submit more than nine hundred exhibits. (13)

December 20, 2021 – January 3, 2022: Jury deliberation

The jury in the Holmes trial deliberates for seven days over the course of two weeks. On the seventh day, they reveal to Davila that they are unable to come to a unanimous consensus on three of the eleven counts. However, the judge instructs them to continue deliberating, which they do for several more hours. (14)

January 3, 2022: Holmes found guilty on four federal charges

With the jury still deadlocked on three federal charges, a mistrial is declared for those counts. Holmes is convicted of four of the eight remaining charges and acquitted on the other four. (15)

January 11, 2022: Both parties move to schedule Holmes’s sentencing after Labor Day

Shortly after a jury finds Holmes guilty, the plaintiff and defense file a joint motion to schedule her hearing a minimum of nine months out. In their motion, they “agree that a sentencing hearing following Labor Day 2022 would be appropriate in light of ongoing proceedings in a related matter.” (16) This related matter is the trial of Holmes’s co-conspirator Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, scheduled to proceed soon after the conclusion of her trial. (17)

January 12, 2022: Judge schedules Holmes’s sentencing for September 26, 2022

Davila signs an order granting the joint motion. He schedules Holmes’s sentencing to take place after Labor Day. (18)

Delay #5 - July 11, 2022: Sentencing pushed back to October 17, 2022

The Court delays Holmes’s sentencing by almost a month without providing any public explanation as to why. (19)

September 6, 2022: Holmes asks for a new trial

Nine months after the conclusion of her trial, Holmes moves for a new one. In a motion filed September 6, she reveals that Adam Rosendorff—a former Theranos lab director and one of the government’s star witnesses—showed up at her house unannounced on August 8, 2022. While there, Rosendorff expressed remorse over his testimony at Holmes’s trial. The motion characterizes this interaction as “newly discovered evidence” that warrants at the very least an evidentiary hearing, if not an entirely new trial. (20)

Delay #6 - October 3, 2022: Sentencing hearing replaced with evidentiary hearing

Davila schedules a limited evidentiary hearing for October 17, 2022, delaying Holmes’s sentencing. (21)

October 12, 2022: Sentencing set for November 18, 2022

With October 17 now occupied by an evidentiary hearing, Holmes’s sentencing is pushed back a month. (22)

October 17, 2022: Evidentiary hearing

Retaking the stand, Rosendorff attests to the honesty of his previous testimony. He explains he visited Holmes’s house because he felt guilty about helping criminally convict the mother of a young child—not because his testimony at her trial was inaccurate. (23)

November 7, 2022: Judge denies motion for new trial

Three weeks after the evidentiary hearing, Davila denies Holmes’s request for a new trial. (24)

November 18, 2022: Sentencing hearing

Holmes is sentenced to eleven years and three months in prison. She is ordered to surrender and begin serving her sentence April 27, 2023. (25) Later court documents reveal that this far-off date was chosen “at least in part because Defendant informed the Court that she became pregnant with her second child between the jury returning a guilty verdict against her and her sentencing date.” An April 27 surrender date would allow her to submit to incarceration only after giving birth. (26)

December 5, 2022: Holmes files motion for release pending appeal

Less than a month after being sentenced, Holmes requests to remain out of prison while she appeals her case. (27)

April 10, 2023: Judge denies motion for release pending appeal

Davila rules that Holmes must serve time in jail while appealing her case. In his order denying her motion, he writes that though “Ms. Holmes is not a flight risk or a danger to the safety of

the community,” she has not raised a “substantial question of law of fact” that is “likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.” (28)

Delay #8 - April 25, 2023: Surrender date pushed back

Two days before Holmes must report to prison, her legal team files an appeal of Davila’s April 10 decision. Since Holmes was on bail at the time of this filing, her bail automatically remains in effect until the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can rule on her case, as per the Ninth Circuit’s rules. (29)

May 16, 2023: Ninth Circuit denies motion for release pending appeal

Three weeks after Holmes files her appeal, the Ninth Circuit upholds Davila’s original decision. (30)

May 17, 2023: Surrender date set for May 30, 2023

Davila orders Holmes to report to prison and begin serving her sentence in thirteen days. (31)

May 30, 2023: Holmes reports to prison

Nearly five years after being indicted, Holmes reports to Federal Prison Camp Bryan, a minimum-security federal prison camp in southern Texas. She is currently serving out her sentence there. (32)

 ______________________________________________________________

Sonja Cutts is an Ethics and Public Policy major at the University of Iowa. She writes about a variety of legal topics for Iowa PreLaw Land.

______________________________________________________________

1.       Li, D. K. (2019, January 24). Family of Kalief Browder, young man who killed himself after jail, gets $3.3m from New York. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-kalief-browder-young-man-who-killed-himself-after-jail-n962466

2.       O’Brien, S. A. (2022, November 17). The rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes: A timeline. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/tech/elizabeth-holmes-rise-and-fall/index.html

3.       Goldsmith, J. (2022, September 12). Amanda Seyfried Wins First Emmy; Says Playing Elizabeth Holmes In ‘The Dropout’ Was “Best Time Of My Life” But “I Was So Over Her” By End Of Show. Deadline. https://deadline.com/2022/09/amanda-seyfried-wins-2022-emmy-lead-actress-limited-series-1235116071/

4.       The office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California. (n.d.). U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, et al. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v-elizabeth-holmes-et-al

5.       The Free Law Project. (2018, June 15). Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen: Initial Appearance as to Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.5.0_2.pdf

6.       The Free Law Project. (2019, June 28). Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edward J. Davila: Motion re 67 and Status Hearing [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.83.0.pdf

7.       US Courts. (2020, March 16). General Order No. 72: In Re Coronavirus Disease Public Health Emergency [Data file]. Available from https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/general-orders/abrogated-general-orders/GO_72_3-16-2020.pdf

8.       The Free Law Project. (2020, April 15). Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edward J. Davila: Status Conference held via telephone conference due to COVID19 on 4/15/2020 as to Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.374.0.pdf

9.       The Free Law Project. (2020, April 15). Transcript of Proceedings as to Elizabeth A. Holmes, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani held on 04/15/2020, before Judge Davila [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.455.0.pdf

10.   The Free Law Project. (2020, August 11). Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edward J. Davila: Status Conference held via ZOOM Webinar on 8/11/2020 as to Elizabeth A. Holmes, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.484.0.pdf

11.   The Free Law Project. (2020, December 18). REVISED ORDER SETTING CASE SCHEDULE as to Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.650.0_1.pdf

12.   Khorram, Y. (2021, March 17). Elizabeth Holmes trial pushed to August following surprise pregnancy announcement. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/17/elizabeth-holmes-trial-pushed-to-august-after-surprise-pregnancy-announcement.html

13.   Associated Press. (2021, December 17). Fate of Elizabeth Holmes will soon be in the hands of jurors. FOX40. https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/fate-of-elizabeth-holmes-will-soon-be-in-the-hands-of-jurors/

14.   Cohen, M. (2022, January 5). EXCLUSIVE: Juror speaks out after convicting Elizabeth Holmes. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-juror-speaks-convicting-elizabeth-holmes/story?id=82082789

15.   Popken, B., Madani, D., & Weeke, S. (2022, January 3). Elizabeth Holmes guilty of 4 counts of fraud, acquitted of 4 in Theranos trial. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elizabeth-holmes-verdict-theranos-trial-rcna9022

16.   The Free Law Project. (2022, January 11). Stipulation and Joint Motion to Schedule Sentencing Hearing and to Extend Time to File Post-Trial Motions Under Rules 29, 33, 34 by Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1247.0_1.pdf

17.   Nash, S. (2022, January 12). Elizabeth Holmes sentencing delayed until September. ABC7 San Francisco. https://abc7news.com/elizabeth-holmes-sentencing-theranos-delayed-september/11462148/

18.   The Free Law Project. (2022, January 12). Order Granting Stipulation and Joint 1247 Motion to Schedule Sentencing Hearing and To Extend Time to File Post-Trial Motions Under Rules 29, 33, 34 as to Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1252.0_2.pdf

19.   CBS San Francisco. (2022, July 13). Court delays sentencing for Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes. CBS News Bay Area. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/court-delays-sentencing-for-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/

20.   The Free Law Project. (2022, September 6). MOTION for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence Regarding Adam Rosendorff by Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1574.0_1.pdf

21.   Metz, R. (2022, October 3). Elizabeth Holmes’ sentencing date has been pushed back. CNN Business. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/03/tech/elizabeth-holmes-sentencing-date-moved/index.html

22.   The Free Law Project. (2022, October 12). CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING HEARING [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1601.0.pdf

23.   Khorram, Y. (2022, October 17). Star witness who visited Elizabeth Holmes after fraud trial says “she needs to pay her debt to society.” CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/17/star-witness-in-holmes-theranos-trial-she-needs-to-pay-her-debt.html

24.   The Free Law Project. (2022, November 7). ORDER Denying 1574, 1576, 1577 Motions for New Trial as to Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1636.0.pdf

25.   The Free Law Project. (2022, November 18). Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edward J. Davila [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1660.0.pdf

26.   The Free Law Project. (2023, January 19). OPPOSITION to Defendant Elizabeth Holmes' Motion 1676 For Release Pending Appeal [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1721.0_2.pdf

27.   The Free Law Project. (2022, December 5). MOTION For Release Pending Appeal by Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1660.0.pdf

28.   The Free Law Project. (2023, April 3). ORDER DENYING 1676 MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL as to Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1757.0_2.pdf

29.   The Free Law Project. (2023, April 26). NOTICE of Automatic Stay of Bureau of Prisons Reporting Date by Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1758.0_1.pdf

30.   Bay City News. (2023, May 16). Elizabeth Holmes loses latest bid to avoid prison and gets hit with $452m restitution bill. ABC7 San Francisco. https://abc7news.com/elizabeth-holmes-prison-theranos-us-court-of-appeals-for-the-9th-circuit-news/13256920/

31.   The Free Law Project. (2023, May 17). ORDER Granting 1761 Motion To Set New Reporting Date as to Elizabeth A. Holmes [Data file]. Available from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.327949/gov.uscourts.cand.327949.1762.0_1.pdf

32.   Thorbecke, C. (2023, May 30). Elizabeth Holmes reports to prison. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/30/tech/elizabeth-holmes-prison/index.html

[iowaprelawland]

“Fighting Words” or Free Speech: Matt Walsh at the University of Iowa

By Sonja Cutts, University of Iowa Class of 2026

May 30, 2023

On April 19th, 2023, two groups of people—each several hundred members strong—convened at the Iowa Memorial Union (IMU), a large brick building on the University of Iowa campus. One group was there to watch conservative commentator Matt Walsh speak following a screening of his controversial documentary “What is a Woman?”, which advertises that it follows Walsh “as he fearlessly questions the logic behind a gender ideology movement that has taken aim at women and children.” (1) The other group was there to protest against Walsh and his supporters. As attendees lined up for admission into the event, protestors gathered near the line, shouting slogans like “Trans rights are human rights” and “Protect trans kids.” Others chalked pro-LGBTQ+ messages onto sidewalks surrounding the IMU. Once the event began and the line dispersed, protestors marched through nearby streets, playing musical instruments and disrupting traffic. (2)

Walsh’s appearance was announced back in March by the University of Iowa’s Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter, the student organization hosting the event. (3) Tensions began brewing in early April, when flyers were anonymously posted in downtown Iowa City containing a screenshot from an Iowa YAF group chat. In the conversation pictured, the UI College Republicans President, Samuel Haack, uses an offensive anti-transgender slur. (In an email to The Daily Iowan, Iowa YAF Vice Chair John Piaszynski confirmed the legitimacy of the screenshot but wrote that members of his organization “do not condone the use of disrespectful terms.”) (4)  Shortly after, on April 7th, five progressive student organizations released a joint statement calling on the University “to do what is right by suspending Iowa YAF from all further activities.” (5) A Change.org petition “urg[ing] the University of Iowa to protect transgender students over hate and transphobia” would go on to collect over 4,700 signatures. (6)

However, Iowa YAF has not been suspended. Their event went on as scheduled, despite opposition from many students. Now that the dust has settled, it is worth asking one important question—could the University legally have stopped Walsh from speaking on campus?

Hypothetically, they could have halted the event in one of two ways—either by suspending Iowa YAF and imposing a sanction that would prevent them from using University space for any event, or by forbidding them from using University space for this event specifically. However, both methods would have run into the same challenge. The University of Iowa is a public university—a school primarily funded by a state government. Because the Fourteenth Amendment makes the First Amendment apply to states, (7) public universities are required to uphold freedom of speech.

This requirement would make it difficult—if not impossible—for the University of Iowa to suspend and sanction Iowa YAF for their alleged transphobia. However, in the joint statement released on April 7th, five University of Iowa progressive organizations argued that the University should suspend Iowa YAF because they had violated “Rule 9 of the Office of Student Accountability’s Rules for Student Organizations.” Rule 9 states:

A student organization may be subject to disciplinary sanctions if one or more organization members violates University regulations at an event sponsored by the organization or in the course of the organization’s affairs and the organization failed to exercise reasonable preventive measures. Sanctions may also be imposed on the organization if the activity of one or more members at the organization-sponsored event seriously threatened (a) any educational process or other legitimate function of the University or (b) the health or safety of any member of the academic community. (8)

The joint statement points to the last section of Rule 9, arguing that Iowa YAF has “endanger[ed] the health and safety of our transgender peers” by running the group chat in which Haack used an offensive slur, hosting Matt Walsh, and scheduling events for the Spring 2023 semester with the titles “Debating the Transgender Movement,” “What Age Should be Allowed to Transition?” and “Women’s Spaces in the Age of Transgenderism.”

This argument that speech on the campuses of public universities can be limited if it poses a safety issue has been successfully argued in court before. In 2011, a student named Neil O’Brien at the public California State University-Fresno (CSUF) was disciplined after he filmed and confronted two professors in their respective offices. O’Brien was upset about a poem recently published in the student newspaper La Voz de Aztlan and questioned the two professors about their involvement in its publication. He was charged with violating CSUF’s Student Code of Conduct, which prohibits students from engaging in behavior that “threatens or endangers the health or safety of any person.” When O’Brien sued several University officials in response, the Ninth Circuit ruled that CSUF had not violated his First Amendment rights. (9)

However, it is important to note that this lawsuit involved a direct confrontation between the people having their safety threatened and the person doing the threatening. Iowa YAF’s actions, while they could be considered threatening to transgender students, did not involve direct confrontation between the group and those students. This distinction could mean trouble for the University of Iowa if they suspended Iowa YAF. If the student organization sued, the University would most likely have a difficult time proving that Iowa YAF’s First Amendment rights had not been violated.

That brings us to the other possible method of stopping Walsh’s lecture: refusing to allow Iowa YAF to use University space for that event specifically. This strategy conflicts with one specific aspect of the First Amendment—the public forum doctrine. The Supreme Court recognized this doctrine in the 1939 case Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, in which they held that “[t]he privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all… but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.” (10)

These spaces specifically mentioned in the Hague ruling are considered “traditional public forums,” as they have been historically used for public speech and debate. Speech in these forums enjoys broad First Amendment protections, and can only be regulated in a narrow, content-neutral manner. Public universities, on the other hand, are considered “limited public forums.” In these forums, the government is granted more leeway when it comes to discriminating against classes of speakers or types of speech. Some public universities, for example, refuse to host speakers unless they are invited by a student organization. However, viewpoint discrimination is still forbidden in limited public forums. (11) The University of Iowa could not refuse Walsh space to speak on campus simply because they found his speech to be offensive.

However, the University could shut down Walsh’s planned lecture and/or the screening of his film if they found that his speech fell under a category unprotected by the First Amendment—obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, or fighting words, just to name a few. (12) The category most applicable to Walsh and other controversial campus speakers is fighting words, which were identified as an exception to the First Amendment in the 1942 Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. In that case, the Court ruled that words which “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are unprotected speech. (13) Since then, the Court has narrowed the scope of the fighting words doctrine several times. Notably, in the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, the Court defined fighting words as words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." (14)

Hypothetically, the University of Iowa could refuse to grant Walsh space for his event by arguing that during it, he would most likely engage in insulting speech that could provoke violence. This argument has been made before in court. In 2017, a supporter of the white nationalist Richard Spencer sued Auburn University after they cancelled a speech Spencer planned to give in one of the school’s auditoriums. Due to Spencer’s infamy and widely despised views, the University was worried his presence would threaten the safety and security of those on campus. However, a federal judge ruled against them, finding that Auburn had engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. (15) Additionally, since Chaplinsky, the Supreme Court has not held upheld a single conviction on the basis on the fighting words doctrine. If Walsh sued the University of Iowa for refusing to let him speak, the University would most likely not win the suit using this argument.

In short, it does not appear that the University had any legal way of shutting Walsh down. If they refused to let him speak, they would most likely be sued and defeated in court. Even if they somehow won, they would still have to face the court of public opinion, in which Walsh is a formidable enemy. The very same month as his lecture at the IMU, Walsh spearheaded an incredibly successful boycott of Bud Light after the beer brand partnered with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. Sales of the beer dropped by eleven percent the week after Mulvaney posted a collaboration with Bud Light to her Instagram account. The next week, they dropped another twenty-one percent. And the week after that, they dropped a staggering twenty-six percent. Writing on Twitter, Walsh bragged that he and his supporters had “devastated Bud Light.” (16) One can only wonder if the University of Iowa would fare better if suddenly thrust into the middle of a culture war.

______________________________________________________________

1.       The Daily Wire. (n.d.). What is a Woman?. DailyWire+. https://get.dailywire.com/wiaw/subscribe

2.       Iowa Young Americans for Freedom [iowa_yaf] (2023, March 21). [Graphic Announcing Matt Walsh’s Lecture].  Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/CqDc4uruEVh/

3.       Hansen, R. (2023, April 20). Protesters block campus streets during conservative Matt Walsh’s appearance in Iowa City. Iowa City Press-Citizen. https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/local/2023/04/20/demonstrators-protest-anti-trans-speaker-matt-walshs-iowa-appearance/70133924007/

4.       Delgado, E. (2023, April 8). UI student organizations call for suspension of Iowa young Americans for freedom. The Daily Iowan. https://dailyiowan.com/2023/04/08/ui-student-organizations-call-for-suspension-of-iowa-young-americans-for-freedom/#

5.       University Democrats at Iowa Executive Board, Young Democratic Socialists at Iowa Steering Committee, Ignite UI, Student Advocates for Planned Parenthood UI, & Environmental Coalition at Iowa. (2023, April 7). Joint Statement on Campus Transphobia. https://www.docdroid.net/CY7YbuN/joint-statement-on-campus-transphobia-pdf

6.       Paxson, T. (n.d.). Speak out against Matt Walsh - Protect Trans Students at UIowa. Change.org. https://www.change.org/p/speak-out-against-matt-walsh-protect-trans-students-at-uiowa

7.       Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Incorporation doctrine. In Wex. Retrieved May 28, 2023, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

8.       Dean of Students. (n.d.). Discipline of Registered Student Organizations. University of Iowa Division of Student Life. https://dos.uiowa.edu/policies/discipline-of-registered-student-organizations

9.       The First Amendment Clinic at Duke Law. (n.d.). O’Brien v. Welty. Campus Speech Database. https://campus-speech.law.duke.edu/campus-speech-incidents/obrien-v-welty/

10.   Oyez. (n.d.). Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization. Retrieved May 28, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us496

11.   Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Forums. In Wex. Retrieved May 28, 2023, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums

12.   Congressional Research Service. (2019, January 16). The First Amendment: Categories of Speech. Congress.gov. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072

13.   Oyez. (n.d.). Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Retrieved May 28, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/315us568

14.   Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Fighting words. In Wex. Retrieved May 28, 2023, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

15.   The First Amendment Clinic at Duke Law. (n.d.). Padgett v. Auburn University. Campus Speech Database. https://campus-speech.law.duke.edu/campus-speech-incidents/padgett-v-auburn-university/

16.   Covucci, D. (2023, May 2). A steep decline in Bud Light sales in April has conservatives touting victory in boycott. The Daily Dot. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/bud-light-sales-boycott-conservatives-victory/

[iowaprelawland]

The Two Faces Of The Pandemic Legally Battle

By Emily Harkin, University of Iowa, Class of 2023

August 28, 2022

In 2010 and 2016, Moderna patented the mRNA technology that was used in the COVID-19 vaccination. In these vaccinations, mRNA technology instructs human cells on how to develop proteins in order to stimulate the immune system’s response. Moderna’s vaccine with mRNA targeting technology allowed the process of developing and approving a vaccine to become heavily advanced and sped up. In the past, it had taken years to put a vaccination in production and usage, but with mRNA technology it only took a couple of months. (1)

As of Friday, August 26, Moderna is suing for “monetary damages” from Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech, in Massachusetts’ U.S. District Court over two violations of intellectual property rights regarding the COVID-19 vaccine (1). This patent infringement lawsuit against Pfizer and BioNTech is also taking place in Germany. (2) Specifically, Moderna is alleging that “Pfizer/BioNTech, without permission, copied mRNA technology that Moderna had patented between 2010 and 2016, well before COVID-19 emerged in 2019 and exploded into global consciousness in early 2020.” The first alleged intellectual property right was a choice to use the mRNA vaccine instead of the three other vaccines that Pfizer and BioNTech took to trial. The second was “the coding of a full-length spike protein that Moderna says its scientists developed while creating a vaccine for the coronavirus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).” (1)

In response to these allegations, a Pfizer spokesperson wrote in an email that “We are surprised by the litigation given the COVID-19 vaccine was based on BioNTech’s proprietary mRNA technology and developed by both BioNTech and Pfizer.” This general surprise, from the defendants and the public, comes from Moderna’s consensus in the early pandemic, which was a leniency towards intellectual propriety rights and patent law, particularly towards countries that are within the range of being lower and middle income. However, when looking at comparative COVID-19 vaccination revenue, this is not as much of a surprise. This recent legal action may be inspired by the difference in revenue of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. Pfizer and BioNTech earned $22 billion while Moderna earned $10.4 billion with the one week release advantage of Pfizer/BioNTech. (1)

As of March 8, 2022, Moderna is looking for monetary damages from the vaccine earnings of Pfizer and BioNTech. (4) However, Moderna is still excluding low-income countries in this lawsuit. For Pfizer and BioNTech, this will mean that Moderna will not be suing for money from the Pfizer vaccine sales to lower income countries. (1) Additionally, in accordance with Moderna’s initial waiving of patent law, Moderna has stated that it does not want to cause an inaccessibility of this crucial vaccination. So, it will remain on the shelves, with monetary damages going to Moderna. (4) Moderna’s forward looking statement said that they were using the guidelines within the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 to support their allegations. (2)

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 – Title I: Reduction of Abusive Litigation, Section 101 – 104 (3)

However, Pfizer and BioNTech have a way to defend these allegations. In court, this past statement about patent leniency could be a potential argument for Pfizer and BioNTech in the up incoming, and most likely long lasting, court battle. Bloomberg Intelligence suggests that patent laws in the United States will not hold Pfizer and BioNTech fully liable due to “current case-law trends on written description and enablement,” but could hold both companies partially liable. (4) Additionally, an expert on patent pledges, Jorge Contreras, stated that that the original Moderna statement towards the waiving of patent law would allow a good defense from Pfizer and BioNTech. This is not the solitary case against the large pharmaceutical companies of the COVID-19 pandemic. Moderna followed this trend, as Alnylam Pharmaceuticals sued Moderna about the usage of lipid nanoparticle technology.

______________________________________________________________

1. Trotta, Daniel. “Moderna Sues Pfizer/BioNTech for Patent Infringement over Covid Vaccine.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 26 Aug. 2022, https://www.reuters.com/legal/moderna-sues-pfizerbiontech-patent-infringement-over-covid-vaccine-2022-08-26/.

2. “Moderna Sues Pfizer and BioNTech for Infringing Patents Central to Moderna's Innovative Mrna Technology Platform.” Moderna Sues Pfizer and BioNTech for Infringing Patents Central to Moderna's Innovative MRNA Technology Platform, https://investors.modernatx.com/news/news-details/2022/Moderna-Sues-Pfizer-and-BioNTech-for-Infringing-Patents-Central-to-Modernas-Innovative-mRNA-Technology-Platform/default.aspx.

3. H.R.1058 - 104th Congress (1995-1996): Private Securities Litigation ... https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/1058.

4. Peebles, Angelica, and Robert Langreth. “Moderna Sues Pfizer, BioNTech over Covid Vaccine Technology.” Bloomberg Law, 26 Aug. 2022, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/moderna-says-its-suing-pfizer-biontech-over-covid-vaccines.

[iowaprelawland]

The Baby Formula Crisis Worsens

By Emily Harkin, University of Iowa, Class of 2023

August 11, 2022

In February, Abbott Laboratories, known for its medical technology and health care products, issued a voluntary recall of several formula products, specifically Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare. [1] This recall was due to the possible contamination of baby formula with a type of fatal bacteria as well as additional health problems to infants, like necrotizing enterocolitis, from a mishandling of products in their factory within Sturgis, Michigan. This contamination has been the cause of over 30 federal court lawsuits. This recall of formula, in addition to the limit of baby formula production, has created a mass shortage of baby formula across the United States. [1]

The magnitude of cases has led to the creation of several actualized and possible MDLs the country. [1] MDLs, otherwise known as Multidistrict Litigation, are used in federal civil courts that help to reduce the magnitude of similar court cases for the purposes of efficacy. Legal battles in federal courts, rather than state courts are preferable for multi-million-dollar companies due to the defendant friendly leaning of federal courts.

Congressional Codification of MDLs in 28 U.S. Code § 1407 [4]

Up to June 15, there were 89 lawsuits in the federal MDL in Illinois. [2] Recently, there is a more accurate total of 97 lawsuits within the Chicago MDL with the claim of “premature infants suffering from a disease called necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming cow’s milk-based formula.” [1] Although the number of lawsuits is increasing within the MDL, this type of litigation is support is encouraged by Abbott Laboratories who has stated a desire for the centralization of lawsuits to be sent to U.S. District Judge John Kness in Chicago who has previously reviewed company cases. [1] Within the Chicago MDL, litigation is already in process as a federal judge has ruled that Abbott Laboratories, is unable to use “snap removal” as a legal escape clause against its numerous allegations, specifically against their Similac baby formula product. Snap removal is a nicknamed removal of a state case to a federal court prior to a forum defendant. This is a circumvention around the “Forum’s Defendant Rule’s prohibition against removal,” which creates this legal loophole. The courts are very divided about whether this loophole is permittable or not. [3] In a simplified application of the term, the lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories a defendant can take the case of a state court docket before the plaintiff has the ability to have it served by the police department. [2] In the Chicago MDL, Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in the Northern District of Illinois ruled that it was “absurd” reasoning, especially within Cook County “where service must be effected by the county sheriff.” Additionally, “she wrote that the “properly joined and served” language was intended to stop gamesmanship by plaintiffs, who might otherwise name a defendant in a lawsuit with no intention of serving it in order to bring it in a particular state court.” “Abbott’s interpretation…would create a race between the Cook County Sheriff and forum-state defendants, totally divorced from plaintiff’s intent to properly serve and join those defendants,” she wrote.” “A few hours or even a few minutes’ difference in timing of service – a matter wholly outside plaintiffs’ control – cannot be a basis for federal court action,” the judge added.” [2] Additionally, Abbott argued that its products, Similac and others, “increase the babies’ chance of survival” as well as denying the allegations against them. [2]

______________________________________________________________

1.      Jones, Diana Novak. “Plaintiffs in Baby Formula Litigation to Push for Case-Consolidation at MDL Hearing.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 28 July 2022, https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/plaintiffs-baby-formula-litigation-push-case-consolidation-mdl-hearing-2022-07-27/.

2.      Pierson, Brendan. “'Absurd' Loophole Can't Keep Abbott Formula Lawsuits in Federal Court -Judge.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 23 June 2022, https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/absurd-loophole-cant-keep-abbott-formula-lawsuits-federal-court-judge-2022-06-23/.

3.      “An Overview of Snap Removal.” Semmes, 12 Apr. 2022, https://semmes.com/law-updates/an-overview-of-snap-removal/.

4.      “28 U.S. Code § 1407 - Multidistrict Litigation.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1407.

[iowaprelawland]

Discretion Within Immigration

By Emily Harkin, University of Iowa, Class of 2023

July 29, 2022

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 denial regarding the case that sought to reform and federally protect deportation prioritization, one of the many parts of President Joe Biden’s deconstruction of the Trump Administration’s policies towards immigration. This case was a revisitation of the memorandum from the Homeland of Security that ended the Trump administration’s policy, the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPPs). This policy is more commonly known as the “remain in Mexico policy.”

The MPPs policy had forced refugees into a more difficult process regarding the asylum system within the United States. [1] In this policy, as migrants who were in fear of returning home appeared at the border, the U.S. Government could force migrants to return home to wait for their legal proceedings instead of waiting within U.S. borders. This wait for immigration legal proceedings can take up to months. This program changed from being only applicable to people whose origins are from predominately Spanish-speaking countries to any country in the Western Hemisphere in 2021. It also applies to families and single adults but not unaccompanied children. [4]

Hopeful Migrants waiting for their legal proceedings in Mexico due to the Migrant Protection Protocols. [5]

This Supreme Court decision involves the 11 million people living illegally within the United States. From the memorandum in 2021, immigration officials within the Department of Homeland Security were told to focus on the deportations of three types of noncitizens since the federal government does not have the resources to deal with all 11 million noncitizens. [2] These noncitizens to be sought out were to be categorized under “suspected terrorists, people who have committed serious crimes, and those caught at the border.” For the deportation agents, Biden’s policy “would give agents more discretion to consider individual circumstances and prioritizes threats to national security or public safety.” [2] Texas and Louisiana argued against this policy in the Texas courts, and the courts affirmed their argument. They argued that “under federal law officials lack discretion and are obligated to detain immigrants who commit a broad array of crimes or who have been ordered to remove.” [3] They also argued that their states, Texas and Louisiana, have an entitlement to sue due to injury in direct causation from this policy. [2] Other states have unsuccessfully challenged this policy. The Courts suing the states has been a recently increased idea with states like California and Texas suing the Trump and Biden Administration respectfully, which could become a negative trend. [2]

The court gave a 5-4 decision, without reasons listed, which is commonplace for an expediated case. [2] This decision “denied the Biden administration’s request to block a federal judge’s ruling,” Judge Drew B. Tipton from Victoria, Texas serving in the Federal District Court, [2] “that had prevented immigration officials from carrying out the enforcement guidelines while litigation over the legality of the policy continues.” [3]

This policy in this case follows the line of President Biden’s campaign promise, which in essence, had been a “reversal of the restrictive immigration policies put in place by his predecessor President Donald Trump.” This has involved a variety of ideas to unravel the layers of anti-immigration policy from previous President Trump, including the retainment of programs like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Biden also seeks to remove travel bans to countries with the majority of citizens practicing the religion of Islam as well as the ending of the construction for one of Trump’s most notable campaign promises, the border wall between the United States and Mexico. [1]

Although Biden is deconstructing most of Trump’s anti-immigration and migration policies, he is continuing to restrict migration and immigration into the United States through the guidelines set by the U.S. Centers for Disease in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [1]

______________________________________________________________

1.      Dwyer, Mimi. “Factbox: U.S. President-Elect Biden Pledged to Change Immigration. Here's How.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 15 Jan. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-immigration-promises-factbo/factbox-u-s-president-elect-biden-pledged-to-change-immigration-heres-how-idUSKBN29K1X1.

2.      Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Refuses for Now to Restore Biden Plan on Immigration Enforcement.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 July 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-immigration.html.

3.      Person, and Andrew Chung. “U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Allow Biden's Shift on Immigration Enforcement.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 22 July 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-declines-allow-bidens-shift-immigration-enforcement-2022-07-21/.

4.      “What Is the Migrant Protection Protocols ‘Remain in Mexico’ Program?” Americanbar.org, https://www.americanbar.org/.

5.      Romo, Vanessa. “U.S. Supreme Court Allows 'Remain in Mexico' Program to Continue.” NPR, NPR, 11 Mar. 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/03/11/814582798/u-s-supreme-court-allows-remain-in-mexico-program-to-continue.

[iowaprelawland]

The Constitutionality of State Travel for Abortions

By Emily Harkin, University of Iowa, Class of 2023

July 18, 2022

Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court precedent that allowed abortion to be nationally protected since 1973. The recent 6-3 decision in favor of overturning this 50-year-old precedent has turned the protection of legal abortion over to the decisions of the individual states’ legislatures. This decision has created many questions for all citizens, especially those with the capacity for pregnancy. Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed one of these various concerns in a concurring opinion from Dobbs v. Jackson to discuss “the future implications” of the decision of Roe v. Wade [1]. One of these ‘future implications’ was over one of the remaining ways for women to access abortions in states that criminalize abortions. Justice Kavanaugh restated the question, “May a state bar a resident of that state from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion?” And stated that his “answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel” [1]. This sparked a debate over the constitutionality of the right to travel because there is no technical precedential ruling for the right of interstate travel [2]. A professor of law at Georgia concurs with this, stating that “the right of Americans to travel interstate in the United States has never been substantially judicially questioned or limited.” In the few cases where this question has been raised, like the Supreme Court case about California’s restriction upon a certain group’s migration, the right to interstate travel has been upheld. The primary argument of the Supreme Court in the area of interstate travel has been the continuation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects the citizens of the state “against discriminatory treatment under the law of a different state.”

The right to interstate travel was further elaborated in Saenz v. Roe in 1999, establishing three ideas [3].

Three Components of the Right to Travel [5]

The most pressing concern is what was left unspecified in Justice Kavanaugh’s narrow statement. Although people with the capacity for pregnancy can travel from state to state for abortions, will they face punishment in their home state after their return? Adam Liptak writes, "The real world issue…is not whether women seeking abortions would be stopped at the state’s border but rather what would happen afterward – to the women, to those who helped them travel and to out-of-state abortion providers.” This is one incredibly realistic indirect method that states with anti-abortion legislature will use to restrict and criminalize people capable of pregnancy from seeking out-of-state abortions. Missouri legislators have already brought up interstate travel for abortion, who have been debating the constitutionally of bills “that would restrict residents’ ability to obtain abortions in other states.” This has already become such an anticipated issue that Montana’s Planned Parenthood stated that they “would require proof of residency for women seeking abortion pills.” Not only will this criminalize people traveling interstate for an abortion, but this also criminalizes and negatively affects medical professionals. Professor Donley said that Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion piece did allow for “literally no protection” for these doctors and clinics in legal states concerning patients who are out-of-state residents where abortion is illegal or limited [2]. Interstate travel for an abortion is not a new idea; it is an implemented practice with roughly 8% of patients traveling to different states for an abortion in 2017. However, this will disproportionately impact certain communities, such as “low-income individuals; Black, Latina and Asian patients; young people; and LGBTQ individuals” [3]. This issue of the constitutionality of interstate travel is one of the many recently undefined areas resulting from the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Other issues that are likely, and may have already, risen to debate and implementation are over medical abortions, Plan B. I.V.F, contraceptive pills, and more [2].

______________________________________________________________

Weiss, Debra Cassens. “Does Right     to Travel for Abortion Include Right to Avoid Penalty? Kavanaugh     Concurrence Doesn't Go so Far.” ABA     Journal,     https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/does-right-to-travel-for-abortion-include-right-to-avoid-penalty-kavanaugh-concurrence-doesnt-go-so-far.    

Liptak, Adam. “The Right to     Travel in a Post-Roe World.” The New     York Times, The New York Times, 11 July 2022,     https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/us/politics/the-right-to-travel-in-a-post-roe-world.html.    

Meryl J. Chertoff, Opinion     Contributor. “The Right to Travel to Seek an Abortion in a Post-Dobbs     World.” The Hill, The Hill, 25     June 2022,     https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3536720-the-right-to-travel-to-seek-an-abortion-in-a-post-dobbs-world/.    

“Fourteenth Amendment     Privileges and Immunities.” Findlaw,     https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation02.html.

Stevens. “Saenz v. Roe.” Legal Information Institute, Legal     Information Institute, 17 May 1999,     https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZO.html.

[iowaprelawland]

A Break From Tradition

By Emily Harkin, University of Iowa, Class of 2023

July 7, 2022

On June 29th, 2022, the Supreme Court overruled, in part, a precendent and a lawful ideology towards indigenous people that had been held for nearly 200 years. In this landmark decision, they diminished the effects of the ruling of McGirt v. Oklahoma with the 5-4 decision to uphold Oklahoma in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huetra.

In 1831, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was an established decision from the Supreme Court. It remained a continuance of the judicial view of Native American tribes being as John Marshall quotes in Cherokee v. Georgia (year) not foregin states, but as “domestic dependent nation(s).” This was an interpretation of the Article III of the Constitution about Court Jurisdiction in response to the Georgia State Legislative creating legal framework that would allow the Cherokee nation to be “divided up, and distributed to the white citizens in the state of Georgia.” [4]

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States [6]

More recently, McGirt v. Oklahoma originated from a lower court, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals. In this 2020 case, a tribal member of the Muscogee (Creek Nation) was found guilty of crimes against a minor citzen of the United States within tribal lands. In the court of law, Jimcy McGirt argued that he could not be guilty under Oklahoma legal jurisdiction due to the Indian Major Crimes Act. This ended as a 5-4 decision with the dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Kavanaugh in 2020. Their dissenting opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts with Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh, and in part Justice Clarence, who had accepted the argument from Oklahoma about the boundary establishment of the Creek Reservation. Overall, the majority decided and accepted that there was a previous determination of Creek Nation boarders that was established by an 1866 treaty. With acceptance to those boarders, the majority decided that the case falls under the federal statute that decrees these understood boundaries are constituted as a reservation that can only be lessened or ‘disestablished’ by a “clear expression of congressional intent.” [3]

In the past week, Oklahoma v. Castro-Huetra came before the court when Victor Manuel-Castro Huerta was found guilty for neglect against his Native American step daughter within the confines of the Cherokee Reservation in the special court of Child Negect in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. [2] This case challenged, in part, the Supreme Court ruling from the McGirt v. Oklahoma ruling. This 5-4 decision against Castro-Huetra allows states to now have “the power to prosecute non-Indian crimes within Native lands.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, stating “Indian country is part of the State, not separate from the state.” [1] This statement directly contrasts and disregards John Marshall’s deeply influential declaration of their separation from statehood by calling indigenous tribes nations. Gorsuch, a republican-appointed judge, wrote the dissent for this case. He pointed out that their was an intentional avoidance of tribal sovereignty in Justice Kavanaugh’s written majority opinion. Gorsuch wrote that this had little to do with the crime and punishment of Castro-Huetra, but rather Oklahoma wanting “to gain a legal foothold for its wish to exercise jurisdiction over crimes involving tribal members on tribal lands.” [5] Gorsuch echoed his opinion in the McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020 case, when he wrote that the “Trail of Tears was a promise” where “the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever” and cited the 1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat. 368 that gave Native Americans sovereignty, self governance free from the states.

McGirt v. Oklahoma and Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta are very similar legal jurisdictional arguments regarding Native American reservations. Although the decisions are extremely different in two similar court cases with McGirt and Castro-Huetra, this decision does not necessarily overturn Castro-Huetra. However, this decision will effect more than Oklahoma, but rather all future indigenous jurisdictional disputes. [1]

______________________________________________________________

Ablavsky, Gregory, and     Elizabeth Hidalgo Reese. “Opinion | The Supreme Court Strikes Again - This     Time at Tribal Sovereignty.” The     Washington Post, WP Company, 3 July 2022,     https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/01/castro-huerta-oklahoma-supreme-court-tribal-sovereignty/.    

“Oklahoma v. Castro-Huetra.” Oyez,     https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-429.

“McGirt v. Oklahoma.” Oyez,     https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-9526

Cherokee     Nation v. Georgia - Oregon.gov. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and-family/equity/NativeAmericanEducation/Documents/SB13%20Curriculum/SC%20Summary%207_Cherokee%20Nation%20v%20Georgia.pdf.    

Francis-Smith, Janice. “Gorsuch     Dissent Accuses Oklahoma of 'Unlawful Power Grab'.” The Journal Record, 2 July 2022, https://journalrecord.com/2022/07/01/gorsuch-dissent-accuses-oklahoma-of-unlawful-power-grab/.    

Constitution of the United States §177–§178 [Article     III, Sections 1–2].     https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-pg78.pdf.

[iowaprelawland]

Carson V. Makin And The Trend Of The Supreme Court

By Emily Harkin, University of Iowa, Class of 2023

June 29, 2022

On June 21st, 2022, the Supreme Court embedded Carson v. Makin into the framework of our government, a case deciding the exclusion or inclusion of tuition from public funds for religious, and typically private, schools. The vote was 6 to 3 in favor of Carson with the dissent of Justice Sotomayor, Justice Breyer, and Justice Kagan. [2]

The question of school curriculum content and if it certain variations of it could be publicly funded was raised in 2020 with the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Espinoza challenged the Montana Department of Revenue’s Rule 1, which disallowed “scholarship recipients from using their scholarships at religious schools.” The vote was 5-4 in the Supreme Court for Espinoza. [3] This question of content and funding was answered in 2022 with the case of Carson v. Makin in Maine. Maine uses SAUs, otherwise known as local school administrative units, for the continuance of free public education for primary and secondary schools. Each SAU has its own primary school, but it may not have a secondary school. This disconnect between the primary and secondary schools typically happens in rural areas. This lack of a connected secondary school forces the SAU to work with an independent secondary school by contracting or paying a student’s tuition through a public or certain types of private schools. Religious private schools do not exist under the category of an approved private school. The Carsons, Gillies, and Nelsons desired their children to attend schools like Temple Academy and argued “that the nonsectarian requirement violates the Constitution on its face and as applied” in order to gain tuition assistance for religiously affiliated schools. [4] The vote was a 6-3 supermajority in favor of Carson. Supermajorities are often a rarity in the Supreme Court, and there is a typical vote cast of 4-5 or 5-4.

However, this supermajority is unsurprising since there has been a trend of increased conservatism and Christian influence in the judiciary, especially concerning the topic of religion and have emphasized “the role of religion in public life.” [2] In the recent years preceding this decision, the Supreme Court has had a recent record of favoring Christianity’s morals and obligations. During the Trump Administration, The Supreme Court ruled that workplaces could deny specific aspects of health care in coverage to insurance, like birth control. This continued with a recent ruling in favor of discrimination against LGBTQ+ couples who wanted to foster children with a Catholic social services agency located in Philadelphia. The Supreme Court has also ruled on a case of discrimination employment when they decided that in religious schools, faculty could reject teachers based on religion. [2]

Free Exercise Clause [6]

The Supreme Court issued the final decision in Carson v. Makin, stating “Maine may not exclude religious schools from a state tuition program.” [2] The arguments between the justices became an argument over judicial interpretation about whether religious coursework violates either the Free Exercise Clause, government neutrality, and the separation between church and state. These general differences in understanding the Constitutional framework are not uncommon. Cornell writes that “Historically, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in dealing with this problem [Free Exercise Clause]. At various times, the Court has either applied a broad or narrow application of the clause.” [5] In his majority opinion Chief Justice Roberts argued for the upholding of the free exercise clause and wrote that “neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinions to show their support of upholding the idea of a separation between church and state and a government neutrality in the affairs of religion. Justice Breyer wrote for a civic education and stated that “to play that role effectively, public schools are religiously neutral neither disparaging nor promoting any one particular system of religious beliefs.” Justice Sotomayor wrote that this case’s decision was a way “to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” [1]

______________________________________________________________

Vile, John R. Carson v. Makin, https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/2124/carson-v-makin.    

Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court     Rejects Maine's Ban on Aid to Religious Schools.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 June 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-maine-religious-schools.html.    

“Espinoza v. Montana Department     of Revenue.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1195.    

“Carson v. Makin.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1088.    

“Free Exercise Clause.” Legal Information Institute, Legal     Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause.    

“The Bill of Rights: A     Transcription.” National Archives     and Records Administration, National Archives and Records     Administration, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#:~:text=Article%20the%20third...,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.    

[iowaprelawland]

A Man Negligently Caught in a Lie

By Emily Harkin, University of Iowa, Class of 2023

June 16, 2022

Michael Lowe, a 46-year-old Arizonian Grand Canyon tour guide, is suing American Airlines after a misidentification of a suspect of a burglary at a shop in the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport in 2020. The perpetrator was recorded by surveillance cameras while committing the crime and boarding the same flight as Lowe, flight 2248 from Flagstaff, Arizona to Reno, Nevada. [3] The American Airlines only reported Lowe’s name in compliance with the search warrant to the police which led to Mr. Lowe’s arrest on at a party on July 4th. He was on vacation with his friends in Tucumcari, New Mexico. After the party was reported as a disturbance, authorities ran his and other partygoers’ names through the system. He would then go on to spend 17 days of imprisonment in jail after suddenly discovering he had an outstanding warrant for a felony and a misdemeanor. [5] During his jail-time, Lowe was in an “unending nightmare” and lived in a “constant state of fear.” [1] Lowe was placed with in an overcrowded jail with a variety of offenders, since Quay County does not separate inmates, and he was surrounded by “gang members, habitual offenders, and inmates who were in for violent offenses” (5). He was unable to sleep and viewed cruelties, like denial of medical care to sick inmates and the excessive violence of guards against inmates. [5] The outbreak of COVID-19 also was a major factor in the Lowe’s life-altering imprisonment. Quay County had an obvious “contempt for the health, safety, and well-being of its inmates.” [5] Lowe’s charges were later dismissed, and he was let out of Quay County Detention Center after the realization of the complete dissimilarity between the offender and Lowe. [3] He was left jail with nothing his original clothes that had grown mold while they were detained and some of his possessions. He was forced to alternate between busing and walking to get to his home. Now, Lowe suffers from hypervigilance, nightmares, intrusive thoughts, a pain in his hip, economic damages, and a distaste towards activities he used to love. [5]

In Texas, negligence is determined by an altered type of comparative negligence, otherwise called proportionate responsibility. If the plaintiff (Michael Lowe) is found to have some responsibility, then the damages against the defendant (American Airlines) can be reduced. For Michael Lowe to win this lawsuit, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 33.001 states that “a claimant may not recover damages if their percentage of responsibility is greater than 50 percent.” [4] Simply, he has the burden of proof of the preponderance of evidence.

Lowe is suing American Airlines in Northern Texas for gross negligence which has caused his continued mental anguish, economic fall, and emotional distress. [3] This lawsuit examines the various problems with America Airlines’ identification of Lowe. The lawsuit states American Airlines should have allowed the authorities to conduct their own investigation and identification. The lawsuit states that instead of adhering to standard procedures to turn “over all data for individuals” for a search warrant, American Airlines allegedly decided to identify the suspect themselves based off the written description of the suspect from the security footage. [5] In the affidavit from the police report, the offender was described “as tall and thin, White or Hispanic with a short military style haircut, black polo shirt and blue jeans.” [1] The search warrant asked for a list of passengers, not a single passenger. When American Airlines reported the name of one passenger: Michael Lowe [3], who did not share all similar characteristics of the offender and shows a striking difference in appearances based on pictures of him and the offender on the same day. The lawsuit says that “if it [American Airlines security] provided the name of a single individual in response to the search warrant instead of turning over the entire flight manifest as ordered, it was highly likely that the individual would be arrested and imprisoned.” [1] Lowe’s lawsuit makes the argument that due to America Airlines’ negligence with their response to the search warrant, he was imprisoned. This led to Lowe’s continued mental and economic from the events he had witnessed while he was in jail. Lowe has decided to legally pursue the airline in favor of suing the sheriff and police, who both denied giving statements to ABC 15. [2]

In response to this lawsuit, American Airlines is reviewing the case [1] and made a statement to ABC 15. This statement detailed that “As required by law, American cooperates with and responds to court orders for information related to possible criminal activity, and that’s what we did in this instance when we were presented with a search warrant.” [2] 

Currently, the real offender may still be at large, and Lowe’s case is ongoing.

______________________________________________________________

Albert, Victoria. “Man Says He Was Wrongly     Jailed for 17 Days after American Airlines Falsely Identified Him as a     Burglary Suspect.” CBS News, CBS     Interactive, 7 June 2022, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-airlines-michael-lowe-arizona-man-wrongly-jailed-lawsuit/.

Bontke, Jordan. “Flagstaff Tour Guide Sues     Airline for Wrongful Arrest.” KNXV,     KNXV, 9 June 2022, https://www.abc15.com/news/state/flagstaff-tour-guide-sues-airline-for-wrongful-arrest.

Franklin, Jonathan. “An Arizona Man Says     American Airlines Is to Blame for His Wrongful Arrest.” NPR, NPR, 9 June 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/06/09/1103786830/arizona-man-sues-american-airlines#:~:text=A%20lawsuit%20against%20the%20airline,gross%20negligence%22%20of%20American%20Airlines.

“Texas Negligence     Laws.” Findlaw, 29 Apr. 2019,     https://www.findlaw.com/state/texas-law/texas-negligence-laws.html#:~:text=Texas%20uses%20a%20modified%20form,your%20damages%20can%20be%20reduced.&text=Plaintiff%27s%20negligence%20not%20greater%20than,diminished%20in%20proportion%20to%20negligence.

Marisa-Sarnoff. “Arizona Man Sues American     Airlines over Case of Mistaken Identity That Landed Him in Jail for More     than Two Weeks.” Law & Crime, Law & Crime, 8 June 2022, https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/arizona-man-sues-american-airlines-over-case-of-mistaken-identity-that-landed-him-in-jail-for-more-than-two-weeks/.    

[iowaprelawland]

Elizabeth Holmes And The Law Of

By Ana Marth, University of Iowa Class of 2022

December 21, 2021

The Theranos empire, a biotech company, began its ascent up the success ladder of the business world in 2003. A lot has changed since Theranos’ establishment. The company is no longer in operation, and Holmes is in the middle of a trial concerning her role in the company’s deceptive practices. She is currently being tried for “two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and nine counts of wire fraud” (2). The end sentencing has a maximum of twenty years in prison for Elizabeth Holmes (3).

Theranos specialized in blood testing innovation (4). The products and “technology” that the trial centers around are its nanotainer and edison (4). The nanotainer was a “a tiny container barely half an inch high, just big enough to hold a couple of drops (of blood)” (6). The edison was, “Theranos' proprietary blood analysis technology” (6). The image below, courtesy of Business Insider, is sourced directly from Theranos’ website and explains their product. The graphic states, “Many of our tests require only a few drops of blood. And all of our test kits, including venous draws, require dramatically smaller samples and use much smaller needles than traditional labs...” The nanotainer is visible in the third image of the graphic.

The company built itself around the concept of creating a timelier, more comprehensive, and less intrusive method. CNN Business? Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh Balwani were aware that the product could not “consistently” provide “accurate” results for “certain types of blood tests” (2). Obviously, there are serious implications if these testing systems are returning false results, and diagnoses are being based on them. A serious illness could go undiagnosed, or an individual could be led to believe they have a disease that they, in fact, do not actually have. Holmes and Balwani knew the possible defects in their product, but they continued selling the product on the premise that it could deliver on its promises. Specifically, “…the defendants used a combination of direct communications, marketing materials, statements to the media, financial statements, models, and other information to defraud potential investors” (2). Holmes, also confessed to placing Pfizer and Schering-Plough logos on company reports (1). This caused many potential clients to get the wrong idea, “Numerous investors and business partners have testified they believed the reports were from the pharmaceutical companies and indicated they had endorsed Theranos' technology” (1). Another area in question focuses on the edison portion of the product. The blood contained in the nanotainer is supposed to be reviewed the edison, but Theranos was using “third-party machines” (1). Holmes confessed to this practice as well. In her reasoning she cited it as a tactic to save “trade secrets” (5).

Holmes was only 19 years old at the time that she started Theranos. She was dating the company COO, Ramesh Balwani. The relationship has since been cast in a detrimental light, and it is a central part of Holmes’ argument. The defense is arguing that she was in an “abusive relationship” and it “affected the decisions she was making” (1).

The trial for Elizabeth Holmes began on September 7th and is ongoing. Theranos’ Ramesh Balwani’s trial will not begin until next year, 2022, in January.

______________________________________________________________

1)      O'Brien, S. A. (2021, November 24). What we've learned so far from Elizabeth Holmes' testimony. CNN. Retrieved November 27, 2021, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/24/tech/elizabeth-holmes-trial-recap/index.html.

2)      United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California. (2021, October 12). U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, et al.. The United States Department of Justice. Retrieved November 27, 2021, from https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v-elizabeth-holmes-et-al.

3)      Guardian News and Media. (2021, November 22). Elizabeth Holmes says she had faith in Theranos's early studies. The Guardian. Retrieved November 27, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/nov/22/elizabeth-holmes-resumes-testimony-in-theranos-trial.

4)      Ana Santos Rutschman Assistant Professor of Law. (2021, November 18). How theranos' faulty blood tests got to market – and what that shows about gaps in FDA Regulation. The Conversation. Retrieved November 27, 2021, from https://theconversation.com/how-theranos-faulty-blood-tests-got-to-market-and-what-that-shows-about-gaps-in-fda-regulation-168050.

5)      Topol, E. (2018, May 14). Blood, sweat and tears in biotech - the theranos story. Nature News. Retrieved November 27, 2021, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05149-2?error=cookies_not_supported&code=9336a6b2-cd3e-4a79-9d0a-3fb405c27ec0.

6)      Loria, K. (2015, October 19). What we know about how Theranos' 'revolutionary' technology works. Business Insider. Retrieved November 27, 2021, from https://www.businessinsider.com/how-theranos-revolutionary-technology-works-2015-10.

7)      Guardian News and Media. (2021, November 20). Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes testifies at trial in Risky move. The Guardian. Retrieved November 27, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/nov/19/elizabeth-holmes-trial-prosecution-rests.

Photo Credit: Max Morse for TechCrunch 

[iowaprelawland]

Fyre Festival: Legal Repercussions Of A Failed Music Festival

By Maya Tomlinson, University of Iowa Class of 2023

October 12, 2021

Fyre Festival was supposed to be the most glamorous music festival of the 21st century, with goers spending tens of thousands of dollars on a promised extravagant two weekends. It was a music festival that was planned to take place on the island of Great Exuma in the Bahamas in 2017. Goers were promised a luxury trip with high class food, accommodation, music, and more. Fyre was organized by 27-year-old founder of the company responsible for the event Billy McFarland. McFarland and the rest of his team promoted Fyre as a transformative VIP experience that would be attended by some of the best-known celebrities. Models such as Hailey Baldwin, Kendall Jenner, etc., promoted this luxurious music festival and were expected to be in attendance alongside other well-known stars.

What was supposed to be the most grand, memorable music festival of the century, ended up being a disastrous fraud. Guests were promised private jets flying them to the island of Great Exuma, but instead were stranded for hours at the airport, without a clue where their luggage was. Makeshift food tents replaced the gourmet food companies that were supposed to be attending, the confirmed performers were nowhere in sight, and the “luxury, eco-friendly domes and villas” end up being mattresses scattered across the dirt ground, and disaster tents leftover from Hurricane Matthew. Along with guests getting robbed of their so called extravagant experience, inhabitants of the island who helped set up the event were also unpaid by McFarland after working long hours of manual labor for free.

Following the failed event, Fyre Festival and McFarland faced several lawsuits, and attendees are still wondering where their money is to this day. There were more than a dozen lawsuits Fyre Festival faced, and Mark Geragos initiated this with his suit against Fyre Fest on behalf of festivalgoer, Daniel Jung. The suit claims negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, and breach of covenant of good faith. The lawsuit was brought to at least $100 million in damages after anticipating a class of over 150 plaintiffs. Another lawsuit filed was made by John Girardi, whose claim is much different from the other lawsuits by accusing the festival’s social media advertisements of violating Federal Trade Commission regulations. Influencers were not disclosed to have paid for promoting Fyre Fest even though they were. Two of the other major lawsuits made claim of violation of the state consumer fraud act and breach of contract, similar to Geragos’s claim. National Events Services was the first organization to file a lawsuit against McFarland and his team. Similar to the other claims made, the festival’s organizers were accused of fraud and negligence, and seeked hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages after being hired to offer medical services for the event.

The most recent lawsuit was made by attendees of the festival. Kenneth and Emily Reel are suing the festival’s agency, 42West, along with McFarland and his team of misrepresentation and violation of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The attendees also mentioned in their claims how Fyre Fest employees in charge of social media did not allow negative comments to be made about the event or else they would face civil unrest.

Billy McFarland pled guilty to wire fraud charges and was sentenced to six years in federal prison in March 2018. Four years following Fyre Festival, just a few months ago in April of 2021, 277 ticket buyers were told they would receive payouts. Originally, they were supposed to be receiving $7,220 apiece, but $1.1 was subtracted from the $2 million class-action settlement for accountants and legal costs. The class-action lawsuit argued the organizers were aware that the festival was “dangerously underequipped and posed a serious danger to anyone in attendance.” The payout was dropped to just $281 each if the proposal was approved by a judge. Famous celebrities who were supposed to attend the event were already paid and it has been difficult to reclaim the cash they were paid to promote and attend the event. As of July 2021, there is little money to be found that can be used to refund all the guests of their robbed experience, and McFarland is set to be in prison until August 2023.

______________________________________________________________

Bahr, Sarah. “Fyre Festival Ticket Holders Win $7,220 Each in Class-Action Settlement.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Apr. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/arts/music/fyre-festival-settlement.html.

Hanbury, Mary. “These Photos Reveal Why the 27-Year-Old Organizer of the Disastrous Fyre Festival Has Been Sentenced to 6 Years in Prison.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 19 Jan. 2019, https://www.businessinsider.com/fyre-festival-expectations-vs-reality-2017-4#fans-were-expecting-to-see-blink-182-perform-14.

Tfl. “Updated: Fyre Festival Is Facing 9 Lawsuits, FBI Investigation, Organizer Arrested.” The Fashion Law, 27 Mar. 2020, https://www.thefashionlaw.com/a-list-of-all-of-the-fyre-festival-lawsuits-that-have-been-filed-so-far/.

Entertainment, Legal. “Fyre Festival Flameout: What You Need to Know about the 6 Lawsuits.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 13 May 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2017/05/10/fyre-festival-legal-battles-a-guide-to-the-6-lawsuits/?sh=301ce30a5d08.

“Fyre Festival Ticket-Holders Proposed Payout Slashed.” BBC News, BBC, 8 July 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57770564.

[iowaprelawland]

SeaWorld In Legal Trouble Following the “Blackfish Effect”

By Maya Tomlinson, University of Iowa Class of 2023

September 22, 2021

The 2013 Netflix film, “Blackfish,” is a documentary following the story of an orca whale named Tilikum. Tilikum had been a property animal held in captivity by SeaWorld for years, and was one of the oldest orcas at the park. “Blackfish” highlights the death of one of SeaWorld’s trainers in February of 2010. Dawn Brancheau suffered blunt force trauma to the head, neck and torso, when Tilikum tugged her into the water and eventually drowned her. The death of Dawn Brancheau sparked anger worldwide concerning the treatment and captivity of whales by large corporations such as SeaWorld. The anger that spread throughout the public was then coined “the Blackfish effect.”

The Blackfish effect was defined by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a “spiraling crisis that threatened SeaWorld’s reputation.” Publicly, SeaWorld acted calm about the backlash they were receiving, but behind the scenes they were falling apart. This is what caused a great amount of legal issues for the corporation. The law requires publicly traded companies to notify investors of situations that could largely affect their business. SeaWorld officials went against this law by downplaying the magnitude of the Blackfish effect on the company.

After approximately five years of SeaWorld denying the allegations made against them to the public, in 2017, it was revealed by SeaWorld officials that the United States Justice Department was taking apart statements made by SeaWorld and what they inferred about the way “Blackfish” influenced the well-being of the company.

In September 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) announced that the SeaWorld franchise had agreed to pay $5 million in fines to settle “fraud charges” for misinforming investors about the documentary’s effect on the industry and status of the company. Following this payment, SeaWorld made a statement implying that they will continue to take “world-class” care of their animals, and that they are glad legal matters have been put to rest.

Even though SeaWorld paid the $5 million to settle the lawsuit made against them, they continued to deny allegations of “Blackfish” having any impact on the reputation of their company. They claimed that the documentary gave false information, and that their parks provide the best care for their animals from their animal care specialists. Even though SeaWorld’s attendance dropped significantly 13% in early 2014, the company still claimed that the decline in goers had nothing to do with the release of the movie until August. Soon after their acknowledgement of the Blackfish effect, their stock prices drastically decreased a whopping 33%.

Since the lawsuit was filed against SeaWorld in 2018, SeaWorld still faced legal issues up until 2020. There had been an ongoing issue between SeaWorld and its investors ever since they lied about how much the company was financially hurt after the release of “Blackfish.” In February 2020, the S.E.C. disclosed a filing agreement made by SeaWorld’s investors. A California federal judge approved a $65 million settlement for the investors who were deceived by the financial state of the company. This agreement finally put an end to the legal battle between SeaWorld’s investors and their company. SeaWorld did not admit any misconduct in as part of the agreement and U.S. District Judge Michael Anello signed off on the arrangement.

After the $65 million agreement was made, court records said that the money must be paid into an escrow account, so that it can be “used to pay any taxes, notice and administration costs, litigation expenses, attorneys’ fees, and any other costs and fees awarded by the court.”

Today, SeaWorld has still refused to make many comments about any of their legal issues regarding the Blackfish effect. While the legal battle between SeaWorld and its investors had been resolved, SeaWorld seems to be facing new financial struggles today due to the Coronavirus pandemic. New legal issues have begun to surface regarding SeaWorld charging people for their annual season passes even though the park has been temporarily closed, due to COVID-19.

______________________________________________________________

Zaveri, Mihir. “SeaWorld Agrees to Pay $5 Million IN 'Blackfish Effect' Case.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/business/seaworld-blackfish-fine.html.

Mooney, Mark. “SeaWorld Trainer Killed By Whale Had Fractured Jaw and Dislocated Joints.” ABC News, ABC News Network, abcnews.go.com/GMA/seaworld-trainer-dawn-brancheau-suffered-broken-jaw-fractured/story?id=10252808.

Mooney, Mark. “SeaWorld Trainer Killed By Whale Had Fractured Jaw and Dislocated Joints.” ABC News, ABC News Network, abcnews.go.com/GMA/seaworld-trainer-dawn-brancheau-suffered-broken-jaw-fractured/story?id=10252808.

[iowaprelawland]

Purdue Pharma: A Legal Overview

By Ana Marth, University of Iowa Class of 2022

September 16, 2021

The first wave of the opioid crisis in America dealt primarily with prescription opioids. A Purdue Pharma opioid product, OxyContin, came on the scene in 1996, coinciding with the 1990s boom in prescription opioid overdose deaths. The company has spent many years in court over OxyContin since then.

Purdue Pharma has been embroiled in lawsuits for the past decade and a half. Presumably this will all come to a halt with the most recent ruling in bankruptcy court. Judge Robert Drain ruled Purdue Pharma will file bankrupt and the Sackler family will release ownership of Purdue. $4.5 billion will be paid out by the company to drug recovery programs. All sales generated by the former Purdue Pharma will be given to drug treatment programs as well. The ruling comes after a 2015 federal ruling that found Purdue Pharma guilty of kickbacks and fraud.

Purdue was found in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b), the anti-kickback statute, as the company made it beneficial for doctors to prescribe their product, OxyContin. In addition, the pharmaceutical company touted OxyContin as safer in relation to addiction. According to one medical journal, “Oxycodone, the active ingredient in OxyContin, is a schedule II analgesic that acts as a pure opioid agonist on both central and peripheral opiate receptors” (1). The Drug Enforcement Administration states that drugs classified as a schedule II are extremely addictive. “Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence” (5). Purdue’s deception has been highlighted in multiple cases.

In the United States of America v. Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. case the agreed statement of facts outlines Purdue’s egregious practices. The document details specific “training” that the company’s sales force received on OxyContin.

“Trained PURDUE sales representatives and told some health care providers that it was more difficult to extract the oxycodone from an OxyContin tablet for the purpose of intravenous abuse, although PURDUE's own study showed that a drug abuser could extract approximately 68% of the oxycodone from a single 10 mg OxyContin tablet by crushing the tablet, stirring it in water, and drawing the solution through cotton into a syringe. Told PURDUE sales representatives they could tell health care providers that OxyContin potentially creates less chance for addiction than immediate-release opioids” (21).

It continues to lay out how Purdue not only incorrectly advertised the product, but they did it knowingly. In conjunction with the intention to propel its sales, Purdue’s sales practices were full of falsehoods. This has been the common finding amongst the plethora of Purdue lawsuits.

______________________________________________________________

1.        Aquina, Christopher, et al. “OxyContin Abuse and Overdose.” Postgraduate Medicine, www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3810/pgm.2009.03.1988?needAccess=true.

2.        2, Casey Ross Dec., et al. “Richard Sackler Proposed Plan to Play down Oxycontin Risks.” STAT, 30 Dec. 2019, www.statnews.com/2019/12/02/purdue-richard-sackler-proposed-plan-play-down-oxycontin-risks/.

3.        Chow, Ronald. “Purdue Pharma and OxyContin – A Commercial Success But Public Health Disaster.” Harvard Public Health Review, vol. 25, no. Spring, www.jstor.org/stable/45345199.

4.        “City Of.” News: City of Newark Files Suit Against Eleven Opioid Manufacturers, www.newarknj.gov/news/city-of-newark-files-suit-against-eleven-opioid-manufacturers.

5.        “Controlled Substance Schedules.” Controlled Substance Schedules, www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/.

6.        David Armstrong — ProPublica Feb. 21, et al. “Deposition: Sackler Embraced Plan to Conceal OxyContin's Strength.” STAT, 10 June 2019, www.statnews.com/2019/02/21/purdue-pharma-richard-sackler-oxycontin-sealed-deposition/.

7.        Donroe, Joseph H., et al. “The Deepening Opioid Crisis in North America: Historical Context and Current Solutions.” Current Addiction Reports, Springer International Publishing, 17 Oct. 2018, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40429-018-0228-5.

8.        Dwyer, Colin. “Your Guide to the Massive (and Massively Complex) Opioid Litigation.” NPR, NPR, 15 Oct. 2019, www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/15/761537367/your-guide-to-the-massive-and-massively-complex-opioid-litigation.

9.        Hoffman, Jan. “Purdue Pharma Is Dissolved and Sacklers Pay $4.5 Billion to Settle Opioid Claims.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Sept. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/health/purdue-sacklers-opioids-settlement.html.

10.     Horwitz, Sari, et al. “'Sell Baby Sell!': Inside the Opioid Industry's Marketing Machine.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 6 Dec. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/opioid-marketing/.

11.     “Judge Conditionally Approves Purdue Pharma Opioid Settlement.” U.S. News, U.S. News, 1 Sept. 2021, 10:29, www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2021-09-01/judge-set-to-rule-on-purdue-pharmas-opioid-settlement-plan.

12.     “Opioid Data Analysis and Resources.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 10 Mar. 2021, www.cdc.gov/opioids/data/analysis-resources.html.

13.     “Opioid Manufacturer Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Kickback Conspiracies.” The United States Department of Justice, 24 Nov. 2020, www.justice.gov/opa/pr/opioid-manufacturer-purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-fraud-and-kickback-conspiracies.

14.     “Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to 3 Opioid Criminal Charges.” Addiction Center, 20 Nov. 2020, www.addictioncenter.com/news/2020/11/purdue-pharma-plead-guilty-opioid-criminal-charges/.

15.     “Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Three Criminal Charges.” Pharmaceutical Technology, 25 Nov. 2020, www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/purdue-pharma-guilty-charges/.

16.     “Purdue Pharma Reaches Agreement with DOJ over Opioid Medicines.” Pharmaceutical Technology, 22 Oct. 2020, www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/purdue-pharma-doj-opioid/.

17.     “Purdue Pharma to Pay $4.5bn to Settle Opioid Lawsuit in the US.” Pharmaceutical Technology, 9 July 2021, 15:29, www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/purdue-pharma-opioid-lawsuit-us/.

18.     Shraddha Chakradhar and Casey Ross Dec. 3, et al. “The History of Oxycontin, Told through Purdue Pharma Documents.” STAT, 30 Dec. 2019, www.statnews.com/2019/12/03/oxycontin-history-told-through-purdue-pharma-documents/.

19.     Turner, Lane. “Ag Sues Opioid Maker Purdue Pharma - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com, 12 June 2018, www3.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/06/12/sues-opioid-maker-purdue-pharma/a8iH4zK5sWs055dbebT7GN/story.html?arc404=true.

20.     “Understanding the Epidemic.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Mar. 2021, www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html.

21.     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA . Unites States of America v. The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. i.bnet.com/blogs/purdue-agreed-facts.pdf.

[iowaprelawland]

Dr. Dre And The Multi-Million Dollar Divorce

By Danny Siegel, University of Iowa Class of 2022

January 27, 2021

Famous Rapper and Producer Dr. Dre has recently been through one of the “messiest” divorces in recent memory. The famed artist has been fighting legal battles against ex-wife Nicole Young and is asking for “$2 Million a month in temporary spousal support” after their divorce filing. In addition to this extreme monetary request, she is also seeking an additional $5 Million in legal fees.[1] 

The couple split in June of this past year, after 24 years of marriage. Despite the separation, nothing has changed for the couple. Young still has access to Dre’s luxuries. Including their Malibu home, private chefs, all of their cars, and many other assets.

Like most Hollywood divorces, this courtship has come down to one main agenda: Money. Young claims that Dre tore up their prenup agreement after he felt "bad" for allegedly pressuring her into signing it. However, Dre claims the former couple signed an ironclad prenuptial agreement which would prevent him from losing a percentage of his sizable fortune after the couple got divorced.

After many months of legal battles trying to determine whether the prenup agreement is valid, Dr. Dre, whose real name is Andre Young, agreed to advance Nicole Young the $2 million sum she was seeking to cover her bills and other expenses on January 11th, 2021.[2][3]

Dre and his ex-spouse are due back in court on April 14th. Then, the couple will begin fighting for spousal support and legal fees. Dre suffered a brain aneurysm on January 5th. Assuming his recovery continues to progress, the proceedings will take place on that scheduled day.

Dre has now joined a potential list of celebrities who may be legally obligated to pay multi-millions of dollars to an ex-spouse. Joining celebrities such as Rupert Murdoch, Mel Gibson, Kenny Rogers, and Michael Douglas.

Dre has amassed a net worth of roughly $1 Billion. He will be able to buy the best legal protection in the United States. However, paying some sum for spousal support appears inevitable. Since 2010, there has been a reported 380,000 divorce cases ending with the female receiving some sum of support.[4]

Legal experts are predicting that this case will likely end sooner rather than later.  Peter Walzer, a Los Angeles-based family law firm partner, spoke on Dre's divorce. "She's going to get half of what he's worth. But the good news for Dr. Dre is she probably won't need spousal support. She asked for temporary support and she'll probably get it and that will be huge by our standards, it will be probably hundreds of thousands of dollars a month, and she'll be entitled to that." [5]  

Recently, Nicole Young has come out with new allegations against Dre. She claims to be a victim of both physical and emotional abuse. Dre has denied all of these allegations.  The prenup can only be terminated or altered through writing. As of now, there have been no new prenups presented in this case. Thus, the legal battles will continue as the former couple continues to fight over assets.

Assuming Dre's health progresses, the proceedings will continue sometime in the spring of 2021.[6]

_______________________________________________________________________

[1] Dr. Dre Files Prenup Saying All Property Is Separate, But She Gets Spousal Support.” TMZ, TMZ, 24 Dec. 2020, www.tmz.com/2020/12/23/dr-dre-prenup-divorce-nicole-young-spousal-support/.

[2] Bekiempis, Victoria. “Dr. Dre Has to 'Advance' His Estranged Wife $2 Million.” Vulture, Vulture, 11 Jan. 2021, www.vulture.com/2021/01/dr-dre-wife-divorce-settlement-2-million.html.

[3] Calvario, Liz. “Dr. Dre Responds to Wife Nicole Young’s Request for Millions in Spousal Support.” Entertainment Tonight. 30 September 2020, https://www.etonline.com/dr-dre-responds-to-wife-nicole-youngs-request-for-millions-in-spousal-support-152531

[4] Griffith, John, and Ron Stringfellow. “The Percentage of Men Awarded Spousal Support Increasing.” Divorce Magazine, 23 Aug. 2016, www.divorcemag.com/articles/percentage-of-men-awarded-spousal-support-increasing.

[5] Young, Julius. “Dr. Dre, Nicole Young Will Likely 'Want to Put a Bow' on Divorce 'Quickly,' Expert Says: 'They're... Savvy'.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 11 July 2020, www.foxnews.com/entertainment/dr-dre-nicole-young-legal-expert-weighs-in. 

[6] Young, Julius. “Dr. Dre Wins Legal Battle amid Pending Divorce: Report.” Fox Business, Fox Business, 3 Oct. 2020, www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/dr-dre-wins-legal-battle-divorce.

Photo Credit: Commondr3ads