US v. Lee, 09-2698, concerned a challenge to the district court’s conviction of defendant for drug related crimes.  In affirmin the conviction, the court held that, assuming arguendo that the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his incriminating statements amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights, such an error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  Further, the district court did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights.

 

Bauer v. Shepard, 09-2963, involved plaintiffs’ challenge to certain provisions of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, claiming that they refrain from speaking about controversial issues such as abortion or from filling out questionnaires about abortion sent by the Indiana Right to Life, Inc., because they fear the prospect of sanctions under the Code.  In affirming the district court’s holding that all of the contested provisions are constitutional, the court  held that district court’s judgment that a plaintiff’s challenge to the pre-2009 Code became moot is modified as it is unripe.  The court held that the fundraising provisions are constitutional, as well as the partisan-activities provisions.  The “commits clauses” provisions are not overbroad, and the recusal clause does not present a constitutional issue at all.

Related Resources:

  • Full text of US v. Lee, 09-2698
  • Full text of Bauer v. Shepard, 09-2963
  • Full text of Schleicher v. Wendt, 09-2154

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules