Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Ethics Blogs -> Dispatches from the Culture Wars
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Ethics
: Dispatches from the Culture WarsObscurely Important Supreme Court Decision
By Ed Brayton
This case will probably never be a staple of the law texts, but it's substantively important and, I believe, correctly decided.
The case is Chambers v. United States. From the syllabus of the opinion.
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) imposes a 15-year mandatory prison term on a felon unlawfully in possession of a firearm who has three prior convictions for committing certain drug crimes or "a violent felony," 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(1), defined as a crime punishable by more than one year's imprisonment that, inter alia, "involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another," §924(e)(2)(B)(ii). At petitioner Chambers' sentencing for being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Government sought ACCA's 15-year mandatory prison term. Chambers disputed one of his prior convictions--failing to report for weekend confinement--as falling outside the ACCA definition of "violent felony." The District Court treated the failure to report as a form of what the relevant state statute calls "escape from [a] penal institution," and held that it qualified as a "violent felony" under ACCA. The Seventh Circuit agreed.Held: Illinois' crime of failure to report for penal confinement falls outside the scope of ACCA's "violent felony" definition. ...
Failure to report is a separate crime from escape. Its underlying behavior differs from the more aggressive behavior underlying escape, and it is listed separately in the statute's title and body and is of a different felony class than escape.
Hear, hear! This case is, at its foundation, about over-reaching executive power that is wholly disinterested in due process and civil liberties. Even the conservatives on this Court were not convinced by the conflation of what is essentially a crime of "inaction" (as Breyer puts it in the opinion) and a crime of action, and plausibly violent action. The decision was 9-0 (with 7 joining the opinion and Alito and Scalia concurring); a pretty clear sign that the federal authorities should have known better from the start.
Read the comments on this post...Full post as published by Dispatches from the Culture Wars on January 13, 2009 (boomark / email).
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Tomato Salmonella
Sheetz Convenience Stores agrees to confidential out-of-court settlement with food poisoning victim.
National Association of Realtors
Settlement reached in broker listing antitrust lawsuit, pending court approval.
Missouri Attorney General's Office
$26,000 settlement reached in disability discrimination lawsuit, pending court approval.
Rutland School District
Double pay offered as part of class action wage dispute settlement, pending court approval.

Supreme Court Patent Decision Should Give Some Comfort to Consumers
U.S. Supreme Court limits tribal court jurisdicition
Delaware Supreme Court Issues Opinion on Shareholder-adopted Bylaws
Split decision on Al-Marri, now headed to Court








