Justices limit reach of federal gun crime law
WASHINGTON » The Supreme Court on Tuesday limited the reach of a federal statute that requires stiff penalties for crimes involving a gun.
The 7-2 decision united both conservative and liberal justices, though one dissenting justice compared the result to “Alice in Wonderland.” The justices said the law can’t be used to lengthen the sentences of criminals convicted of a specific attempted robbery offense.
The case before the justices involved Justin Taylor, who in the early 2000s was a marijuana dealer in the area of Richmond, Virginia. The government has said he sold large quantities of marijuana to other dealers who distributed it. In 2003 he and another man planned to steal money from a buyer, and during the robbery the accomplice fatally shot the man.
Taylor was charged with “attempted Hobbs Act robbery,” a federal crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison. He was also charged under a federal statute that outlines mandatory minimum sentences for using a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence.” Taylor pleaded guilty to both and was given a 30-year sentence, 10 years longer than he could have received for just the robbery charge.
A majority of the court, however, ruled that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence and therefore that Taylor was not eligible for the longer sentence.
“Simply put, no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force,” Justice
Neil Gorsuch wrote for a majority of the court.
The justices upheld a federal appeals court ruling that Taylor should be re-sentenced just on the attempted Hobbs Act robbery charge.
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas cited Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass.” He said the decision is an example of how the court’s approach to deciding these kinds of cases has led lower courts on a “journey Through the Looking Glass” during which the justices have found many “strange things.” He said that like Alice, the court has strayed far “down the rabbit hole.”
“I would hold Taylor accountable for what he actually did and uphold his conviction,” he wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, agreeing that the court’s cases in this area of the law have “veered off into fantasy land.”
Frances Pratt, one of
Taylor’s attorneys, said in an email that his attorneys are “gratified to know that the Supreme Court ruled for our client” and hope the decision will also help others. Taylor’s prosecution came at a time when officials in Virginia were attempting to reduce Richmond’s high homicide rate in part by taking a hard line on gun crimes, bringing those cases in federal as opposed to state court. The effort was called “Project Exile.” In other cases:
Roundup lawsuits
The court rejected Bayer’s appeal to shut down thousands of lawsuits claiming that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer.
The justices on Tuesday left in place a $25 million judgment in favor of Edwin Hardeman, a California man who says he developed cancer from using Roundup for decades to treat poison oak, overgrowth and weeds on his San Francisco Bay Area property. Hardeman’s
lawsuit had served as a test case for thousands of similar lawsuits.
The high court’s action comes amid a series of court fights over Roundup that have pointed in different directions.
On Friday, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an Environmental Protection Agency finding from 2020 that glyphosate does not pose a serious health risk and is “not likely” to cause cancer in humans. The appellate court ordered the EPA to reexamine its finding.
At the same time, Bayer has won four consecutive trials in state court against people who claimed they got cancer from their use of Roundup. The latest verdict in favor of the pharmaceutical company came last week in Oregon.
Bayer had argued that federal regulators have repeatedly determined its products are safe and that lawsuits based on claims under state laws should be dismissed.
In a statement, Bayer said it disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up its case. “The company believes that the decision undermines the ability of companies to rely on official actions taken by expert regulatory agencies, as it permits every U.S. state to require a different product label” in conflict with federal laws, Bayer said.
Last year, Bayer set aside $4.5 billion to deal with the claims that glyphosate, the weed-killing ingredient in Roundup, causes nonHodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer. The company had previously taken a charge of nearly $10 billion for earlier rounds of litigation.
Bayer also had warned that allowing these sorts of claims will damage innovation in agriculture, health and other industries.
Bayer, which is based in Leverkusen, Germany, inherited Roundup and the litigation when it acquired Monsanto in 2018.
The EPA says on its website that there is “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.” But in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as ”probably carcinogenic to humans.” The agency said it relied on “limited” evidence of cancer in people and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in study animals.
The Justice Department, which had sided with Bayer in the lower courts during the Trump administration, recommended that the high court not get involved.
Bayer maintains the product is safe but said that it would replace glyphosate in Roundup for residential use beginning in 2023. Products containing glyphosate will still be available for professional and farm use.
Religious schools
The court ruled Tuesday that Maine can’t exclude religious schools from a program that offers tuition aid for private education, a decision that could ease religious organizations’ access to taxpayer money.
The 6-3 outcome could fuel a renewed push for school choice programs in some of the 18 states that have so far not directed taxpayer money to private, religious education. The most immediate effect of the court’s ruling beyond Maine probably will be in nearby Vermont, which has a similar program.
The decision is the latest in a line of rulings from the Supreme Court that have favored religion-based discrimination claims. The court is separately weighing the case of a football coach who says he has a First Amendment right to pray at midfield immediately after games. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a conservative majority that the Maine program violates the Constitution’s protections for religious freedoms.
“Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise,” Roberts wrote.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented. “This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.