The Second Amendment and the Disarmament of Dangerous Felons

The Second Amendment and the Disarmament of Dangerous Felons

This case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses whether a convicted drug trafficker can be constitutionally barred from possessing a firearm within his own home. The defendant, Curtis Squire, argued that the Second Amendment and the "castle doctrine" protect a person’s right to keep arms for self-defense in their residence regardless of their criminal status. However, the court utilized the historical tradition framework established by the Supreme Court to determine that the government may disarm individuals deemed dangerous. By comparing drug trafficking to historical precedents involving the disarmament of political dissidents and other groups perceived as threats to public safety, the court found the restriction justified. Consequently, the court affirmed Squire’s conviction, ruling that the government’s power to disarm dangerous felons extends even into the private home.

Von Derhaar v. Watson: Unlawful Seizure and Qualified Immunity

This case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit outlines a lawsuit involving a civilian police employee and a high-ranking official. The plaintiff, Karl Von Derhaar, alleged that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was forced from his home to undergo a drug test under the orders of Lt. Darryl Watson. The court focused on the doctrine of qualified immunity, which typically protects government officials unless they violate clearly established laws. Ultimately, the judges affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for Watson, ruling that ordering a citizen's seizure without a warrant or emergency was objectively unreasonable. This decision allows the unlawful seizure claim to proceed toward a trial to determine the final merits of the case.

Herbert v. St. James Parish School Board

This episode details a Fifth Circuit decision affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit involving the St. James Parish School Board. The case arose after a student was disenrolled from a school when officials discovered the family did not live within the parish’s geographical boundaries. The student's mother alleged that this action violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, the court determined that residency is a fundamental eligibility requirement for receiving educational services from a local school board. Consequently, the court found that the school district was not responsible for providing a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to a non-resident student. Ultimately, the judges upheld the lower court's ruling, denying requests for stay-put orders and compensatory education.

Jurisdiction and Implicit Denials of Qualified Immunity

This case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals examines whether a defendant can appeal a district court's silence regarding a qualified immunity defense. The case involves a city manager who was sued for alleged equal protection violations but saw his motion to dismiss denied without any specific ruling on his immunity from suit. While appellate courts usually only review final judgments, the collateral-order doctrine allows for immediate appeals on certain critical legal protections. The court determines that failing to address such a defense at the earliest possible stage of litigation acts as an implicit denial of that immunity. Consequently, the appellate court asserts its jurisdiction to review the matter to ensure public officials are not unnecessarily burdened by discovery or trial. Ultimately, the court vacates the lower court's order and remands the case for a proper determination on the immunity claim.

United States v. James: DNA Forensics and Intent to Kill

This case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addresses the appeal of Allen Houston James, who was convicted of a brutal attempted murder committed in 2000 and solved decades later through forensic genealogy. The court rejected James’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions, ruling that his violent actions clearly demonstrated a specific intent to kill and that any instructional errors were invited by his own legal team. However, the court found that the trial judge committed a plain error by applying modern Sentencing Guidelines instead of those active at the time of the crime. This oversight violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, as it subjected the defendant to a harsher penalty range than originally authorized. Consequently, while the court affirmed the conviction, it vacated the sentence and ordered a new sentencing hearing using the correct historical guidelines.