Equal protection, 7th Am cases being argued this week

[Volokh, Eugene]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David H Bowser [SMTP:dbowser at willamette.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 10:04 PM
> To:   Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:      Supreme Court News 01/07/01
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NEWS                01/07/01
> Willamette Law Online - Willamette University College of Law
>  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> During the week of January 8, 2001, the United States Supreme Court
> will hear oral arguments in the six cases summarized below.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Message from the Editor: We encourage you to forward this Issue to others
> who may be interested.  Subscription (FREE) may be accomplished by
> utilizing the link located at the bottom of the Issue.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
. . .

> ************
> Tuesday 01/09
> ************
>
> Nguyen v. INS
> No. 99-2071
> Court below: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
> Full text: http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9860418cv0.html
>
> IMMIGRATION (Distinguishing between Children Based on Parent's Gender)
>
> The issue in this Immigration case is whether 8 U.S.C. s1409 violates the
> equal protection guarantee of the 5th Amendment by imposing different
> standards on citizen-fathers than on citizen-mothers by conferring
> citizenship on the foreign-born and out-of-wedlock children of the latter.
>
> In 1992, Nguyen was convicted of two felony charges of sexual assault on a
> child. The Bureau of Immigration Affairs (BIA) ordered Nguyen to be
> deported back to Vietnam. Jospeh Boulais stepped forward claiming he was
> Nguyen's father and that US Citizenship should be conferred on
> Nguyen. Nguyen and Boulais appealed the BIA's deportation order.
> They argued that s309 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which
> imposed higher standards on men to confer citizenship on their
> out-of-wedlock children, was based on "outmoded generalizations about
> gender that cannot survive heightened scrutiny."  The Court Below
> disagreed, finding that the higher standards imposed on men were
> legitimate. The court reasoned that the higher standards would ensure
> reliable proof of a biological relationship between parent and child, and
> also encourage a more active relationship between the parent and child.
> - - - - -
>
. . .

> ************
> Wednesday 01/10
> ************
>
> District of Columbia v. Tri County Industries, Inc.
> No.  99-1953
> Court below:  United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
> Full text: http://laws.findlaw.com/dc/997028a.html
>
> SCOPE OF APPELLATE REVIEW (Discretion of Trial Judges)
>
> The issue in this property case is whether the Supreme Court's prior
> rulings, which hold that the Seventh Amendment strictly circumscribes a
> district court's discretion to grant a new trial, invalidates the more
> searching inquiry used by the D.C. Circuit.
>
> In the first trial, the jury awarded damages of $5,000,000.  After
> granting a motion for a new trial, the district court, exercising its
> discretion, admitted evidence excluded from the first trial, and the jury
> returned a verdict for $100. Under its "more searching inquiry" standard,
> the Court Below concluded that the district court abused its discretion in
> the second trial by allowing petitioner to admit evidence properly
> excluded in the first trial. Petitioner asserts that the judgment of the
> Court Below is incorrect because the D.C. Circuit's "more searching
> inquiry" standard of review contradicts the standard set forth in the
> Supreme Court's prior rulings, which (1) affords district-court judges
> broad discretion in overseeing jury trials and (2) constrains review of
> new trial-orders to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.  Petitioner
> furthermore asserts that the D.C. Circuit's standard of review allows the
> appellate court to substitute its own judgment for that of the district
> court. Petitioner argues that the appellate court must defer to the
> judgment of the district court and reinstate the second verdict and
> judgment.
> - - - - -
>
. . .

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NEWS         2000-2001
> Willamette Law Online - Willamette University College of Law
> WLO Editor and Chief:  Crystal Miller-O'Brien
> SCN Editors:  David Bowser: mailto: dbowser at willamette.edu
>                        Paul Williams: mailto: pwilliam at willamette.edu
> Student Editorial Board: Daniel Deering, Stephanie Hendricks,
>                                         Grant Stockton, Peter Dassow,
>                                         Tisa Escobar and Jason Montgomery
> Web site:  http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/wlo
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to our web site
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20010108/da28d1cf/attachment.htm