On August 6, the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit in the State Supreme Court, Patterson v Padilla, S257302. It requests that court accept the case, even though the lower state courts have not handled it yet. Sometimes State Supreme Courts do that. It argues that the California Constitution bars California from enforcing Senate Bill 27, the new law that says candidates can’t appear on a presidential primary ballot unless they reveal their income tax returns.
There are now six lawsuits pending against the new law, five using the U.S. Constitution, and one using the State Constitution. The State Constitution says the Secretary of State must put all “recognized” presidential candidates on a presidential primary ballot (assuming they are seeking the nomination of a party). That provision was passed in 1972.
UNITED STATES v. DAVIS ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 18–431. Argued April 17, 2019—Decided June 24, 2019
Respondents Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were charged with multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. They were also charged under 18 U. S. C. §924(c), which authorizes heightened criminal penalties for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in connection with any federal “crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.” §924(c)(1)(A). “Crime of violence” is defined in two subparts: the elements clause, §924(c)(3)(A), and the residual clause, §924(c)(3)(B). The residual clause in turn defines a “crime of violence” as a felony “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” Ibid. A jury convicted the men on most of the underlying charges and on two separate §924(c) charges for brandishing a firearm in connection with their crimes. The Fifth Circuit initially rejected their argument that §924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, but on remand in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 584
U. S. ___, the court reversed course and held §924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutional. It then held that Mr. Davis’s and Mr. Glover’s convictions on the §924(c) count charging robbery as the predicate crime of violence could be sustained under the elements clause, but that the other count—which charged conspiracy as a predicate crime of violence—could not be upheld because it depended on the residual clause.
Held: Section 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. Pp. 4–25.
(a) In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. The vagueness doctrine rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers.
—
See *** void vagueness *** on Google – often in 1 Amdt ops.
Disputed FACTS in trial cases — NOT junk opinions about stuff.
*recognized* — junk opinion like good/bad movies, artwork, fiction books, etc.
https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/constitution-annotated
Constitution Annotated 2017 edition
2018 Supp.
——–
Index
Vagueness in statutes:
Due process………….. 2030–35
First Amendment………. 1172–73, 1208–09, 1261, 1292–94, 1301, 1348, 1359, 1362