Podcasts about effective death penalty act

This Day in Legal History: Terry Nichols ConvictedOn December 23, 1997, Terry Nichols was convicted of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and eight counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. This devastating attack, orchestrated with Timothy McVeigh, targeted the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. The bombing was the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history at the time. Nichols, who played a critical role in the attack by helping McVeigh acquire and prepare the bomb materials, was sentenced to life in prison without parole. McVeigh, the primary perpetrator, had already been convicted earlier that year on June 2 and was sentenced to death. Nichols' trial, however, focused more on his involvement as an accomplice, leading to a conviction that avoided the death penalty. The two trials revealed the intricacies of their plot, rooted in anti-government ideologies and resentment over events such as the Waco siege and Ruby Ridge standoff. The bombing's aftermath led to significant legal and policy changes, including the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which aimed to streamline federal appeals in death penalty cases and enhance law enforcement's ability to combat terrorism. Nichols' conviction underscored the gravity of conspiratorial roles in acts of terror, even when not directly carrying out the attack. The legal proceedings surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing remain pivotal in understanding the U.S. response to domestic terrorism. Nichols' case highlighted the critical balance between achieving justice and addressing the broader ideological threats behind such acts. President Joe Biden signed a funding bill that prevents a government shutdown and keeps federal operations running through March 14, 2025. The legislation passed with bipartisan support in the Senate (85-11) and the House after earlier proposals faltered under pressure from President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk. The funding package includes over $100 billion for disaster relief and farmers, according to the White House. Preparations for a potential shutdown had begun, with federal workers warned of possible furloughs, though critical services like law enforcement and air traffic control would have continued without pay. The funding negotiations highlighted Trump's influence over the Republican Party, as his opposition derailed an earlier bipartisan agreement brokered by House Speaker Mike Johnson. A Trump-backed proposal to waive or raise the debt ceiling also failed due to opposition from conservative Republicans.Musk's endorsement of the final deal gave Johnson a much-needed boost, though the speaker faces ongoing challenges, including a potential leadership fight when the House reconvenes in January.US Congress Sends Spending Deal to Biden on Brink of DeadlineRudy Giuliani urged a federal court to dismiss attempts by Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea' Moss to impose sanctions or hold him in contempt for allegedly obstructing trial preparations. The workers, who won a $148 million defamation judgment against Giuliani, claim he has ignored court orders to produce financial documents, risking further legal consequences. Giuliani denied deliberately withholding information, stating in a declaration that any missing documents were not intentionally concealed.The upcoming January 16 trial will determine whether Giuliani's Palm Beach condo and other assets, including three World Series rings, can be seized to satisfy the judgment. Giuliani, who filed for bankruptcy in 2023 after the defamation ruling, lost significant assets, including his Manhattan apartment and a Mercedes-Benz, due to his ongoing financial troubles. Giuliani's attorney argued that the litigation is politically motivated and vowed to defend him against what they describe as efforts to ruin his reputation. The poll workers, represented by multiple prominent law firms, have not commented publicly on Giuliani's recent filing.Rudy Giuliani Pushes Back on Poll Workers' Call for SanctionsGoogle proposed adjustments to its agreements with Apple and other partners to reduce its dominance in online search, following a U.S. court ruling that it holds an illegal monopoly. The company suggested making its search engine agreements non-exclusive and unbundling its Play Store from Chrome and search for Android devices. Google also offered to allow browser developers to reconsider default search engine settings annually, but it did not agree to end revenue-sharing deals with partners, which remain a key source of funding for companies like Mozilla and Apple.The U.S. government seeks more sweeping remedies, such as stopping Google from paying to be the default search engine and requiring the company to license its search technology to competitors. Prosecutors argue that Google's dominance stifles innovation and competition, particularly as search technologies evolve with artificial intelligence. Google plans to appeal the ruling but emphasized caution in imposing remedies that could harm innovation. The government aims to show the need for broader measures at a trial scheduled for April 2025, where it will call witnesses from OpenAI, Microsoft, and others to support its case.Google offers to loosen search deals in US antitrust case remedy | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked Illinois' law prohibiting swipe fees on retail taxes and tips from applying to national banks, though the restriction remains in effect for payment card networks like Visa and Mastercard. The Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act was challenged by the American Bankers Association and other banking groups, who argued that federal law preempts state regulations for national banks. US District Judge Virginia M. Kendall agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction to exempt national banks while the case proceeds. The ruling reflects ongoing legal tensions between state financial regulations and federal preemption for nationally chartered banks. For now, payment card networks remain subject to the Illinois law's restrictions.Banks Get Temporary Pause on Illinois Swipe Fee Restrictions (3)Luigi Mangione, charged with killing UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan, faces both state terrorism and murder charges, marking a significant legal strategy. Prosecutors allege that Mangione's actions, including the brazen December 4 shooting, were intended to intimidate and coerce the public and influence policy, thus justifying the terrorism charge. If convicted on state charges, Mangione could face life in prison without parole. The decision to classify the killing as an act of terrorism, rather than solely as murder, underscores its broader societal implications. It reflects the legal view that the crime was aimed at instilling fear or advancing an agenda against the healthcare industry. Authorities cited evidence, including a notebook found at Mangione's arrest, with entries expressing hostility toward wealthy executives and the insurance sector, and outlining plans to target Thompson.Mangione also faces federal charges for stalking and killing Thompson, which could result in the death penalty if pursued by prosecutors. The parallel state and federal cases involve different legal theories, with state prosecutors focusing on societal intimidation and federal authorities emphasizing the personal targeting of Thompson. Charging Mangione with terrorism amplifies the gravity of the crime and sets a precedent for how similar cases tied to ideological motives may be prosecuted in the future.Suspect in UnitedHealth CEO's killing faces terrorism charges in New York | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Jones v Hendrix. In this case, the court considered this issue: May a federal inmate who did not challenge their conviction on the ground that the statute did not criminalize their activity subsequently apply for habeas relief after the Supreme Court retroactively invalidates the circuit precedent on which the inmate relied in not challenging their conviction? The case was decided on June 22, 2023. The Supreme Court held that Section 2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's (AEDPA) restrictions on second or successive §2255 motions by filing a §2241 habeas petition. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The majority first clarified the relationship between §2255 and §2241 in the context of federal prisoners challenging their sentences. Congress introduced §2255 to allow prisoners to challenge their sentences in the sentencing court, rather than through a habeas corpus petition under §2241. While the saving clause in §2255(e) preserved access to §2241 in specific situations, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) added restrictions on second or successive §2255 motions. The saving clause does not permit prisoners to circumvent AEDPA's restrictions, even if they are challenging a new interpretation of a criminal statute. The majority found unpersuasive arguments by both Jones and the federal government regarding when §2255 might be considered “inadequate or ineffective,” thus allowing recourse to §2241. AEDPA's restrictions reflect Congress's deliberate choice to balance finality with error correction in the justice system. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan jointly dissented, arguing that Jones presents the precise type of mismatch contemplated in §2255(h) and would those remand for the lower courts to consider his claim under the proper framework. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion arguing that §2255 requires that Jones's petition alleging legal innocence should have been considered on the merits. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In the early morning of March 24, 1994, 20-year-old Kenneth Hayes was getting out of his car when someone emerged from the bushes, chased him down, and fatally shot him in front of his home in Detroit, MI. 18-year-old Larry Smith Jr. became a suspect when a car belonging to a friend of his was spotted near the scene of the crime. Since there was no physical evidence tying Larry to the crime, authorities relied on junk science and questionable eyewitness testimony to convict him of the murder and sentence him to life in prison without parole. To learn more and get involved, visit: https://www.lifeafterjustice.org/ https://www.jarrettadamslaw.com/redeeming-justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996 https://lavaforgood.com/podcast/396-wrongful-conviction-junk-science-footwear-comparison-evidence/ Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A case in which the Court held that the saving clause in 28 U. S. C. §2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in the interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a habeas petition under § 2241.

Here’s episode 237 of Registry Matters. We open with breaking news of an individual in North Carolina, in pretrial detention that was killed. Very sad. We’ve got a great decision from the Ninth Circuit that illustrates what’s wrong with the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The case is Atdom Patsalis versus David […]

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed each prisoner's conviction and death sentence on direct review; each was denied state postconviction relief. Rejecting their petitions for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, the district court found their ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims procedurally defaulted as not properly presented in state court. Each unsuccessfully argued that ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel constituted "cause" to excuse the procedural default. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court reversed. Under section 2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, section 2254(b)(1)(A), requires state prisoners to “exhaus[t] the remedies available in the courts of the State” before seeking federal habeas relief. The doctrine of procedural default, a “corollary” to the exhaustion requirement, generally prevents federal courts from hearing any federal claim that was not presented to the state courts “consistent with [the State's] own procedural rules.” Together, exhaustion and procedural default protect against “the significant harm to the States that results from the failure of federal courts to respect” state procedural rules, Federal courts may excuse procedural default only if a prisoner “can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice.” Attorney error cannot provide cause to excuse a default in proceedings for which the Constitution does not guarantee the assistance of counsel except where the state requires prisoners to raise such claims for the first time during state collateral proceedings. Under section 2254(e)(2), when a prisoner is “at fault” for the undeveloped record in state court, a federal court may hold “an evidentiary hearing on the claim” in only two limited scenarios not relevant here and also must show that further fact-finding would demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is innocent. State postconviction counsel's ineffective assistance in developing the state-court record is attributed to the prisoner because there is no constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings. When a federal habeas court convenes an evidentiary hearing for any purpose or otherwise reviews any evidence for any purpose, it may not consider that evidence on the merits of a negligent prisoner's defaulted claim unless the exceptions in section 2254(e)(2) are satisfied. Credit: Justia US Supreme Court, available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-1009/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure. Petit jury and venue provisions—both traceable to enumerated complaints in the Declaration of Independence—are included in Article Three of the United States Constitution. More criminal procedure provisions are contained in the United States Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. With the exception of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and (maybe) the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, all of the criminal procedure provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to apply to the state governments. Several of these rights regulate pre-trial procedure: access to a non-excessive bail, the right to indictment by a grand jury, the right to an information (charging document), the right to a speedy trial, and the right to be tried in a specific venue. Several of these rights are trial rights: the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses at trial, the right to confront witnesses at trial, the right to a public trial, the right to a trial by an impartial petit jury selected from a specific geography, and the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself. Others, such as the assistance of counsel and due process rights, have application throughout the proceeding. If a defendant is convicted, the usual remedy for a violation of one of these provisions is reversal of the conviction or modification of the defendant's sentence. With the exception of structural errors (such as the total denial of counsel), constitutional errors are subject to harmless error analysis, although they must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. With the exception of a Double Jeopardy or Speedy Trial violation, the government will usually be permitted to retry the defendant. Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), these provisions are the source of nearly all reviewable errors in federal habeas review of state convictions.

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether application of the equitable rule the Supreme Court announced in Martinez v. Ryan renders the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which precludes a federal court from considering evidence outside the state-court record when reviewing the merits of a claim for habeas relief if a prisoner or his attorney has failed to diligently develop the claim's factual basis in state court, inapplicable to a federal court's merits review of a claim for habeas relief.Date                    Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Jan 20 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 26, 2021)Feb 17 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 26, 2021 to March 29, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Feb 18 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 29, 2021.Feb 26 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The States of Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and Utah filed.Mar 29 2021 | Brief of respondent David Martinez Ramirez in opposition filed.Apr 14 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.Apr 16 2021 | Reply of petitioners David Shinn, et al. filed. (Distributed)May 10 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.May 17 2021 | Petition GRANTED.May 25 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jun 08 2021 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 15, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 13, 2021.Jun 10 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, David Shinn, et al.Jun 10 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, David Martinez RamirezJul 14 2021 | Application (21A6) to file the response and reply briefs on the merits in excess of the word limits, submitted to Justice Kagan.Jul 15 2021 | Brief of petitioners David Shinn, et al. filed.Jul 15 2021 | Joint appendix filed.Jul 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Jonathan F. Mitchell and Adam K. Mortara filed.Jul 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The States of Texas, et al. filed.Jul 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.Jul 23 2021 | Application (21A6) granted by Justice Kagan to file the response and reply briefs on the merits in excess of the word limits.Aug 16 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Monday, November 1, 2021.Sep 01 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.Sep 13 2021 | Brief of respondents David Martinez Ramirez & Barry Lee Jones filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Arizona Justice Project and Robert Bartels filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Habeas Scholars Lee Kovarsky, Valena Beety, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former State Supreme Court Justices and Former Federal Judges filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Innocence Network filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Habeas Scholars filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Bipartisan Former Department of Justice Officials and Former Federal Prosecutors filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Federal Defender Capital Habeas Units filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Arizona Capital Representation Project, et al. filed (to be recovered). (Distributed). Recovered brief distributed 10/26/21.Sep 21 2021 | CIRCULATEDOct 13 2021 | Reply of petitioners David Shinn, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 14 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.Oct 22 2021 | REMOVED from the November 2021 ARGUMENT CALENDAR for rescheduling.Oct 26 2021 | ARGUMENT RESCHEDULED FOR Wednesday, December 8, 2021Nov 03 2021 | The record from the U.S.D.C. District of Arizona is electronic and located on Pacer. Also sent is one box of state court records from the Arizona Supreme Court containing 41 documents and one Sealed envelope.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court will decide whether the rule in Martinez v. Ryan renders the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act inapplicable to a federal court's merits review of a claim for habeas relief.

The federal death penalty returned with a vengeance at the end of Donald Trump's term, with 13 of the 17 executions of the last 60 years taking place in 2020. The New York Times opinion writer Liz Bruenig has been reporting and reflecting on this shift in policy. Here she shares her experience of witnessing the execution of Alfred Bourgeois in December 2020. We also talk about the politics and policy of the death penalty, the moral and theological arguments against it (St Augustine and Pope Francis feature here), and what the future holds for the death penalty in the U.S. Liz also describes how a murder of a close family member influenced her work in this area.    Elizabeth Bruenig: Twitter @ebruenig   Elizabeth Bruenig is an opinion writer for the New York Times, with previous positions at the Washington Post and the New Republic. She writes at the intersection of theology, ethics, and politics and in 2019, she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing for her piece “What Do We Owe Her Now.” Bruenig co-hosts a podcast with her husband, Matt, called The Bruenigs, where they discuss family, politics, and current events.  Check out her opinion columns at the New York Times, including her emotional compelling piece “The Man I Saw Them Kill” discussed in this episode.  Also mentioned: Liz quoted this famous monologue from Hamlet: “What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals.” Here's the St. Augustine's Sermon on the Mount (paragraph 64): “But great and holy men… punished some sins with death, both because the living were struck with a salutary fear, and because it was not death itself that would injure those who were being punished with death, but sin, which might be increased if they continued to live.” Pope Francis' statement against LWOP The Reuters piece uncovering the identities of the pharmaceutical companies that produced pentobarbital for the federal government.  We also made references to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (1986) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1996) The National Registry of Exonerations keeps track of exonerations on the basis of false confessions; showing that 70% of those with a reported mental illness or intellectual disability falsely confessed.  Liz also referred to some prior litigation which focuses on the change in procedure from the use of the three-drug cocktail to the use of a single drug (pentobarbital) in lethal injections. And I mentioned the Ta-Nehisi Coates piece: “The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration” The Dialogues Team Creator: Richard Reeves Research: Ashleigh Maciolek Artwork: George Vaughan Thomas Tech Support: Cameron Hauver-Reeves Music: "Remember" by Bencoolen (thanks for the permission, guys!)

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure. Petit jury and venue provisions—both traceable to enumerated complaints in the Declaration of Independence—are included in Article Three of the United States Constitution. More criminal procedure provisions are contained in the United States Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. With the exception of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and (maybe) the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, all of the criminal procedure provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to apply to the state governments. Several of these rights regulate pre-trial procedure: access to a non-excessive bail, the right to indictment by a grand jury, the right to an information (charging document), the right to a speedy trial, and the right to be tried in a specific venue. Several of these rights are trial rights: the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses at trial, the right to confront witnesses at trial, the right to a public trial, the right to a trial by an impartial petit jury selected from a specific geography, and the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself. Others, such as the assistance of counsel and due process rights, have application throughout the proceeding. If a defendant is convicted, the usual remedy for a violation of one of these provisions is reversal of the conviction or modification of the defendant's sentence. With the exception of structural errors (such as the total denial of counsel), constitutional errors are subject to harmless error analysis, although they must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. With the exception of a Double Jeopardy or Speedy Trial violation, the government will usually be permitted to retry the defendant. Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), these provisions are the source of nearly all reviewable errors in federal habeas review of state convictions. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

This is Dennis Solo McKeithan. SCI Phoenix in Pennsylvania. And today I'd like to talk about the Anti-Terrorist Effective Death Penalty Act. You know, we constantly hear politicians and advocates say and shout the slogan "criminal justice reform." And they talk about inequity in the courts, racism, and wrongful conviction. What is not talked about and should have been corrected under the Obama administration is the murderous criminal injustice bill put in the law by Bill Clinton. This bill is commonly known as the Anti-Terrorist Effective Death Penalty Act 95-45. The thing is, it does nothing to terrorists. All it did was take away the right to file a second or subsequent Habeas Corpus from domestic prisoners who are innocent. This was really about Bill Clinton trying to cut off the appeals of men on death row. To expediate their state murders, to target particular prisoners like Mumia. What it actually did and is still doing is denying innocent men their constitutional right to petition the court and present evidence and witnesses to support their claims. Most prisoners were represented by appointed counsel. Who are ineffective, indifferent, and legally abandoning us. So by the time we educated ourselves in the law and realized what happened to us, we are denied access to the court. Because of the Bill Clinton's criminal injustice bill. Barack Obama early on said as a constitution lawyer he knew this bill was unconstitutional and he would get rid of it. But eight years in office, he never even talked about it. If a man can't even get in the courtroom, how can he get out of prison? It is important that we, as a nation, demand that this new administration overturn this bill and allow prisoners their constitutional right to file Habeas Corpus or PCRAs without obstruction. This bill does more to kill innocent prisoners like myself than any other law. This can be done with an executive order. Under the US constitution that says that the Habeas Corpus could never be suspended. Well, Bill Clinton's bill suspended the Habeas Corpus all person in the United States. (Sound of a cell door closing.) These commentaries are recorded by Noelle Hanrahan of Prison Radio.

Under the Trump administration, the United States has pushed aggressively to deport Southeast Asian Americans with criminal records. Hurt that members of the Vietnamese community would support this action, guest producer Thanh Tan (creator of the podcast “Second Wave”) seeks out the people at risk of deportation — and the organizers fighting to keep them in the only home they’ve known. Along the way, she learns to embrace a new direction for Vietnamese Americans confronting the deeply rooted narrative of “the good refugee.” We need your help! Please take this 1-minute survey, so we can have better conversations with partners and sponsors and keep this show growing. It’s fast, easy, and anonymous. Resources and Recommended Reading Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255. The Lifeline provides 24/7, free and confidential support for people in distress and prevention and crisis resources for you or your loved ones. "Know Your Rights" resources to prepare for ICE raids written in Arabic, Bangla, Burmese, Chinese, Dar/Farsi, Gujarati, Hindi, Karen, Khemer, Korean, Nepali, Punjabi, Tagalog, Urdu, and Vietnamese, compiled by the Asian American Federation in NY. Primary sources: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which laid much groundwork for today’s deportations The 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Vietnam President Trump’s Jan 25, 2017 Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement President Trump’s Jan 25, 2017 Executive Order declaring that the presence of “removable aliens” from “foreign nations that refuse the repatriation of their nationals” is “contrary to the national interest” Text of President Trump’s Jan 27, 2017 Executive Order temporarily ceasing admission of refugees to the United States (a.k.a. “the travel ban”) Migration Policy Institute dataset on U.S. annual refugee resettlement ceilings and refugee admissions, starting from 1980 ICE datasets on deportations from FY 2011 through FY 2018 Reporting and analysis on the federal government’s role in detention and deportation of immigrants: “City of Fear” by New York Magazine and The Marshall Project “The Disastrous, Forgotten 1996 Law That Created Today’s Immigration Problem” by Dara Lind, for Vox “ICE and the Banality of Spin” by Eileen Guo, for Topic “U.S.: 20 Years of Immigrant Abuses,” a summary of reports by Human Rights Watch on harm caused by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act Reporting and analysis on the detention and deportation of Vietnamese Americans and Cambodian Americans: “As Cambodian Deportations Resume, Community Looks for Ways to Cope” by Agnes Constante, for NBC Asian America “Deported: A Grassroots Movement” (5-part docuseries) by Sahra V. Nguyen, for NBC Asian America “Fear Grips Immigrants Who Fled Here to Escape Genocide” by Matt Driscoll, for The News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington “A State of Captivity: Immigrants Detained Repeatedly for Old Crimes” by Anjali Enjeti, for Guernica Magazine “Trump Is Pushing Vietnam to Accept Deportees Who Have Lived in the US for Over 20 years” by Dara Lind, for Vox “Trump Moves to Deport Vietnam War Refugees” by Charles Dunst and Krishnadev Calamur, for The Atlantic “The U.S. Ambassador Who Crossed Trump on Immigration” by Mike Ives, for the New York Times Shout Outs John Woo and Kerry Donahue voiced the English translations of Thanh’s parents. Thanks to Julia Preston and Willoughby Mariano for their advice on reporting this story. Credits Produced by Thanh Tan and James Boo Edited by Julia Shu and Cheryl Devall Production support by Austin Jenkins, Jamala Henderson, Kevin Rinker, and Merk Nguyen Sound engineering by Timothy Lou Ly Theme music by Dorian Love Music by Blue Dot Sessions and Epidemic Sound Self Evident is a Studiotobe production. Season 1 is presented by the Center for Asian American Media (CAAM), the Ford Foundation, and our listener community. Our show was incubated at the Made in New York Media Center by IFP. About CAAM: CAAM (Center for Asian American Media) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to presenting stories that convey the richness and diversity of Asian American experiences to the broadest audience possible. CAAM does this by funding, producing, distributing, and exhibiting works in film, television, and digital media. For more information on CAAM, please visit www.caamedia.org. With support from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CAAM provides production funding to independent producers who make engaging Asian American works for public media.

BI-PARTISAN HELL[col. writ. 8/27/18] (c)’18 Mumia Abu-Jamal In much of public discourse today, one hears the call for “bi-partisanship”, as in the nations two corporate political parties, working together to ‘get things done’.’One hears this mostly from corporate media elites, or intellectuals, who decry the lack of civility in today’s politics.What does this mean in the real world? It is a plaintive plea that politicians play nicer. In practice, however, it really means that they unite before their funders to bequeath more and more of the nations’s wealth on them. For the poor, the impoverished, the immigrant and the oppressed, it really means more war on them!  For the wealthy elites ever love disunion among the people; between irrelevancies -like race, ethnicity and social rank. They have ever and always tried to use race, language, age and other perceived differences, to drive workers at each other’s throats. They have ever stoked fear of the Other to secure their class ascendancy. That’s the lesson of Trumpism, but he is not alone in this. Do you oppose Trump because of his racist, fear-mongering call for the Wall? On April 23, 2006, the NY Daily News published an article quoting Hillary Clinton saying ‘We need a wall’. Immigrant wars, it seems, are bi-partisan, for both corporate parties utilize fear to drive voters to the polls. Bi-parisan politics brought us NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the AEDPA (the so-called Effective Death Penalty Act), the Chinese Exclusion Act - and so much more. Bi-partisanship equals repression, amid the toothy smiles of political jackals. —(c)’18maj   

The black letter law discussed in this episode is: Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub. L. 104-132, §221 (1996) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm Addition of Terrorism Exception to FSIA, 28 USC §1605(a)(7) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605A Justice for US victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act, 34 U.S.C.§ 20144 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/20144 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 28 U.S.C. §1602-11 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title28/html/USCODE-2011-title28-partIV-chap97.htm Actions Against Foreign States, 28 U.S.C. §1330 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1330 Provision of Material Support or Resources, 18 U.S.C. §2339(A). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 9 June 1983, No. 21931, (Jan. 1985 - U.S. effective). https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/terrorism/english-18-5.pdf Hostage Taking, 18 U.S.C. §1203 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1203 Torture Victim Protection Act 1992 Pub. L. 102-256 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg73.pdf Alien Tort Statute 28 USC §1350 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1350 U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punishment, 10 December 1984. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, No. 12325 (197). http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/docs/conventions/Conv2.pdf Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. §3663(a). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3663A The Schooner Exchange v. Mcfaddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/11/116/case.html US v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/80/128/case.html Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 488 F.Supp. 665. (D.D.C. 1980). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/488/665/1400196/ First National City bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/611/case.html Smith v. Libya, 101 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 1996). https://www.leagle.com/decision/1996340101f3d2391294 Princz v. Germany, 813 F.Supp. 22 (D.D.C. 1992). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/813/22/1807808/ Alejandre v. Cuba, 42 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 1999). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/42/1317/2501671/ WAMAI et al v. REPUBLIC OF SUDAN et al, No. 1:2008cv01349 - Document 55 (D.D.C. 2011) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv01349/132534/55/ 1952 Jake Tate Letter, State Department Office of Legal Counsel reprinted in 26 DEP'T ST. BULL. (1952) Pages 984-985 https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uiuo.ark:/13960/t3515kb1d?urlappend=%3Bseq=470 Steve Pelak is a partner at Holland & Hart https://www.hollandhart.com/

December 14, 2017 / Rebecca Lavoie hosts Susan, Colin and Bill Rankin of the AJC’s Breakdown podcast to discuss Episode 2 of the Terrance Lewis series, and the effects of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Today’s addendum is brought to you by Omaha Steaks. For only $49.99 you can get a Family Gift Pack wen you go to www.omahasteaks.com and enter UA in the search bar – That’s 75% off! Episode scoring music by Animal Weapon and Blue Dot Sessions. #undisclosed #udaddendum Support the show.

We continue our discussion of the rights of non-citizens, this time with immigration scholar and award-winning fiddle player Jason Cade. We discuss Jason’s latest research into the judicial and administrative responses to of deportation. (Note that we recorded this a few hours before the 9th Circuit released its decision in Washington v. Trump.) This show’s links: Jason Cade’s faculty profile (http://www.law.uga.edu/profile/jason-cade) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1690889) Jason Cade, Judging Immigration Equity: Deportation and Proportionality in the Supreme Court (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2834088) About IIRIRA (the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996) About AEDPA (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996) James Fallows, Washington and the Contract with America (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/jfnpr/jfreview.htm) The White House’s summary of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution) Yamataya v. Fisher (The Japanese Immigrant Case) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18003046466828127036) Arizona v. United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17891750818453472454) Fifth Circuit, Texas v. United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11729216214209225109) Padilla v. Kentucky (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16837631125059475725) Fernanda Santos, She Showed Up Yearly to Meet Immigration Agents. Now They’ve Deported Her. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/phoenix-guadalupe-garcia-de-rayos.html) Michael Wishnie, Immigration Law and the Proportionality Requirement (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4138/) Oral Argument 125: The Elephant (http://oralargument.org/125) Washington v. Trump (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf) (released a few hours after this recording) Hog-eyed Man (https://www.hogeyedman.com) Special Guest: Jason Cade.

On April 4, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Woods v. Etherton without oral argument. -- Timothy Etherton was convicted in Michigan state court of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. His efforts to obtain post-conviction relief in state court--which related to his lawyer’s failure to raise a Confrontation Clause objection to the admission into evidence of the anonymous tip that led to his arrest--were rejected. A federal district court also rejected Etherton’s subsequent attempt to obtain federal habeas relief, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed that judgment. Etherton’s appellate counsel had been constitutionally ineffective, the Sixth Circuit concluded, and no fairminded jurist could conclude otherwise. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit in a per curiam opinion issued without oral argument. Without reaching the Sixth Circuit’s holding that counsel had been constitutionally ineffective, the Supreme Court indicated that the Sixth Circuit had failed to apply the appropriate, deferential standard of review required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. With that in mind the Supreme Court explained, it would not be objectively unreasonable for a fair-minded judge to conclude that counsel’s failure to raise a Confrontation Clause objection to admission of the anonymous tip was due not to incompetence, but because the facts in the tip were uncontested and in any event consistent with Etherton’s defense. -- To discuss the case, we have Ronald Eisenberg, who is Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office.

We start off the show with some poetry:Incident by Countee CullenNext up we have and installment of Holy Shit where we take a look at (and listen to) the radio show Fortress of Faith and their list of questions to help figure out whether or not "Your Muslim friend is a terrorist".  It would be a funnier list if it wasn't being taken so seriously by the shows host (and presumably his listeners).For our In the News segment on this episode, we take a closer look at the family that is truly at the center of the Bureau of Land Management occupation and subsequent debacle out in Oregon...the Hammond's.  Ammon Bundy and his group, Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, may have grabbed the headlines in the corporate media, but, the real victims in this case are Dwight and Steven Hammond.  They were re-sentanced back in the fall of 2015 and given longer jail sentences under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.  [Click to Listen]

It’s a Christmas miracle! Steve Vladeck joins us again! He helps us understand how the Contract with America and a thicket of federal law have resulted in people remaining in prison even though their sentences are based on laws that have been found unconstitutional. Happy Holidays! This show’s links: Steve Vladeck’s faculty profile and writing Steve Vladeck, How an Obscure SCOTUS Procedure Can Solve AEDPA's Retroactivity Catch-22 (and a Growing Circuit Split) Teague v. Lane About the AEDPA Brown v. Allen (Justice Jackson in concurrence: “There is no doubt that if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”) It was 100,000 cops on the beat, not 1 million. We regret the error. (1 million? Really?) About the Contract with America Tyler v. Cain Felker v. Turpin Johnson v. United States Steve Vladeck, The Johnson Retroactivity Circuit Split Plot Thickens… Steve Vladeck, Is the Solicitor General Playing a Shell Game With the Supreme Court Over Johnson Retroactivity? Steve’s (and others’) amicus brief in In re Butler on behalf of law professors Special Guest: Steve Vladeck.

We’re joined by long-time listener and federal public defender Josh Lee to discuss the death penalty. We talk about Josh’s practice, death row, the latest death penalty decision’s substance and tone, and whether the death penalty will last much longer. This show’s links: About Josh Lee Amicus: The Term in Review, episode 23 of Dahlia Lithwick’s excellent Supreme Court podcast Oral Argument 66: You’re Never Going to Get It All Done Federal Public Defender Organization, Eastern District of Arkansas About the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 Ake v. Oklahoma (guaranteeing a right to psychiatric exam to prepare a criminal defense); see also Ward v. State, an Arkansas Supreme Court decision noting the court’s belief that “a defendant's rights are adequately protected by an examination at the state hospital, an institution that has no part in the prosecution of criminals” ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases Josh Lee, Determinism and the Death Penalty Williams v. Hobbs Glossip v. Gross Josh Lee, Dignity Kennedy, Burkean Kennedy, and Libertarian Kennedy Josh Lee, Judicial Abolition from Below Bill Mears, Justice Breyer Robbed at Machete-Point During Caribbean Vacation Doug Berman, "Anti-Death Penalty Activists Are Winning The Fundraising Battle In Nebraska" Casetext Christopher McCrudden, Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights; see also Christopher McCrudden, Understanding Human Dignity (the introduction of which is here) Special Guest: Josh Lee.

What do the federal appeals courts’ striking down of same-sex marriage bans actually mean for marriage equality in the states? Are the state courts bound to follow these decisions while the Supreme Court pursues other interests? Well, Christian got this completely wrong last week, and luckily Michael Dorf is on the line to set us straight. Knowledge bombs galore are dropped. This show’s links: Michael Dorf’s profile, his writing, and his world-famous blog Dorf on Law Amicus, the new Slate podcast by Dahlia Lithwick Oral Argument 36: Firehose of Equality, the last episode in which Anthony Kreis was terrific and Christian made an error that led to this show Michael Dorf, No Massive Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage from South Carolina Michael Dorf, The Relative Importance of Inter-Circuit Conflict and State-Circuit Conflict as Cert Criteria About claim preclusion and nonmutual issue preclusion; United States v. Mendoza (holding that issue preclusion does not apply against the federal government) Colin Wrabley, Applying Federal Courts of Appeals’ Precedent The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution Lochart v. Fretwell, in which Justice Thomas concurred and briefly argued that the “Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court's interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court's interpretation” Martin v. Hunter’ Lessee About the grimly named Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which everyone calls “the AEDPA,” and pronounces ED-puh The federal habeas statute, reflecting in subsection (d) the deference required by the AEDPA to state court judgments on issues of federal law in habeas, which federal law must be “clearly established . . . by the Supreme Court” to be a constraint in habeas on states at all Teague v. Lane About the removal jurisdiction of federal courts, the ability of a defendant to move a state court action to a federal court under certain circumstances Guido Calabresi, Federal and State Courts: Restoring a Workable Balance Henry Friendly, In Praise of Erie — And of the New Federal Common Law (unfortunately only available for a fee on Hein Online) State v. Dukes (an intermediate South Carolina appellate ruling citing State v. Ford Motor Co. for the proposition that South Carolina courts are bound by the constitutional rulings of the Fourth Circuit) Kevin Walsh, Re: SSM Cert Denials (suggesting South Carolina should review and change its apparent approach to Fourth Circuit precedent) Michael Dorf, Should Anti-SSM Appeals Court Judges Rule For Same-Sex Marriage Based On The Cert Denials? Michael Dorf, Prediction and the Rule of Law (an article analyzing the general point applied in the above-linked blog post) Oral Argument 28: A Wonderful Catastrophe, which is all about and contains links for the famous Erie case Michael Dorf, How the Supreme Court’s Inaction on Same-Sex Marriage Echoes Its Conduct in the Civil Rights Era United States v. Windsor Michael Dorf, Cert Denied Is Justice Delayed: SCOTUS Kremlinology in the SSM Cases Stuart v. Laird and some background Special Guest: Michael Dorf.

A case in which the Court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act requires the Court of Appeals to apply a “doubly-deferential” standard in which both the state court and the defense attorney are given the benefit of the doubt in murder cases.