Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Implications of a More Conservative Supreme Court for White-Collar Practitioners
With the selection of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the proposed replacement for liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a 6-3 conservative majority may shape the future direction of the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence. The generally accepted wisdom is that a more liberal court equals a court more protective to the rights of a criminal defendant. But the color of the defendant's "collar" may make a significant difference. In recent years, justices of the Supreme Court have tended to rule differently in white-collar crime cases than how their traditional labels of liberal or conservative would suggest in "blue-collar" crime cases.
What one commentator has termed the "white-collar paradox" — more conservative justices generally ruling in a manner advantageous to white-collar criminal defendants — may be magnified if Barrett is confirmed. A review of recent decisions of the Roberts court and of decisions in which Barrett participated during her limited tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit provides some hints regarding how the Supreme Court's future decisions may affect the law relevant to white-collar criminal practice, and suggests that the court will continue to treat white-collar defendants differently than their "blue-collar" counterparts.
The Roberts Court and the 'White-Collar Paradox'
The term "white-collar paradox" — coined by Prof. J. Kelly Strader to describe justices' voting in white-collar cases appearing to be at odds with their tendencies in "blue-collar" criminal cases — fittingly describes the voting patterns of the Roberts court, especially when it comes to the conservative justices. See, J. Kelly Strader, "The Judicial Politics of White Collar Crime," 50 Hastings L.J. 1199, 1202-03 (1999). We reviewed the Supreme Court's jurisprudence over the last 10 years to try to determine whether the "white-collar paradox" continued in the Roberts court. Not surprisingly, we found that in a significant majority of the "blue-collar" cases when the court was not unanimous, the conservative justices more often supported ruling in favor of the government, while the liberal justices more often supported ruling in favor of the defendant. This is consistent with a Wikipedia analysis of the justices' voting patterns in criminal procedure cases, which, as of 2017, found that justices typically considered conservative sparingly supported ruling in favor of the defendant: Justice Antonin Scalia (27.4%); Justice Anthony Kennedy (33.3%); Justice Clarence Thomas (22.4%); Chief Justice John Roberts (31.1%); and Justice Samuel Alito (18.6%); while justices typically considered liberal more often supported ruling in favor of the defendant: Justice Ginsburg (62.3%); Justice Stephen Breyer (55.6%); Justice Sonia Sotomayor (66.9%); and Justice Elena Kagan (62.5%). See, Wikipedia, "Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices," citing Harold J. Spaeth, Lee Epstein, et al., 2017 Supreme Court Database, (Version 2017 Release 1).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?