1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • understanding supreme court decisions

    From Bernie Cosell@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 23 12:00:15 2023
    I get confused by all the terms in a decision I happen to be looking at US
    v Hansen. syllabus here:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-179#writing-22-179_SYLLABUS

    It says "reversed and remanded", and as I poke through the thicket of
    trials and appeals I find at the very end:

    The District Court rejected Hansen�s argument, but the Ninth Circuit
    concluded that clause (iv) was unconstitutionally overbroad.

    So I'm guessing that the "reversed" decision was the one by the Ninth
    Circuit and it was "remanded" back to the District Court to "rethink it"?
    And all the hundreds of words following outline *how* the District Court
    should be looking at it? Can the District Court just decide the same way
    they had previously or are the basically compelled to accept the motion to dismiss? Or does it throw it back to the original court to retry the
    case given the DC's guidance?

    Altogether I find it very confusing... /b\
    --
    Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
    [email protected] Pearisburg, VA
    --> Too many people, too few sheep <--

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Fri Jun 23 12:57:30 2023
    Bernie Cosell <[email protected]> wrote:

    I get confused by all the terms in a decision I happen to be looking
    at US v Hansen. syllabus here:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-179#writing-22-179_SYL
    LABUS

    It says "reversed and remanded", and as I poke through the thicket of
    trials and appeals I find at the very end:

    The District Court rejected Hansen�s argument, but the Ninth
    Circuit concluded that clause (iv) was unconstitutionally
    overbroad.

    So I'm guessing that the "reversed" decision was the one by the Ninth
    Circuit and it was "remanded" back to the District Court to "rethink
    it"? And all the hundreds of words following outline *how* the
    District Court should be looking at it? Can the District Court just
    decide the same way they had previously or are the basically compelled
    to accept the motion to dismiss? Or does it throw it back to the
    original court to retry the case given the DC's guidance?

    Altogether I find it very confusing... /b\

    First you have to understand that normally the district court determines
    facts, and those facts generally aren't reviewable by an appellate court.

    I haven't read the opinion in your case, but it appears to have been
    remanded to the 9th Circuit, which is supposed to "re-think" it but in a
    way that is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling. That could well
    result in it being sent back to the District Court. And that court could
    come to the same conclusion, if that conclusion, based on the facts, is consistent with the Supreme Court decision. It's rather bureaucratic,
    but makes sense.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Fri Jun 23 12:59:02 2023
    On 6/23/2023 12:00 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:
    I get confused by all the terms in a decision I happen to be looking at US
    v Hansen. syllabus here:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-179#writing-22-179_SYLLABUS

    It says "reversed and remanded", and as I poke through the thicket of
    trials and appeals I find at the very end:

    The District Court rejected Hansen’s argument, but the Ninth Circuit
    concluded that clause (iv) was unconstitutionally overbroad.

    So I'm guessing that the "reversed" decision was the one by the Ninth
    Circuit and it was "remanded" back to the District Court to "rethink it"? And all the hundreds of words following outline *how* the District Court should be looking at it? Can the District Court just decide the same way they had previously or are the basically compelled to accept the motion to dismiss? Or does it throw it back to the original court to retry the
    case given the DC's guidance?

    Altogether I find it very confusing... /b\

    "Remanded" usually means "sent back to the court whose decision we are reversing." So I think it is "remanded" back to the Ninth Circuit to
    rethink their decision in light of the hundreds of words in the opinion.
    And unless the Ninth can think of another reason to overturn the
    district court's decision, they will in turn "remand" the case back to
    District Court. Which will, in turn, either hold a new trial(1) or
    simply sentence Hanson in accordance with the law in question.

    (1) If the original trial did not reach a verdict/decision.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Fri Jun 23 21:27:16 2023
    It appears that Bernie Cosell <[email protected]> said: >https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-179#writing-22-179_SYLLABUS

    It says "reversed and remanded", and as I poke through the thicket of
    trials and appeals I find at the very end:

    The District Court rejected Hansen’s argument, but the Ninth Circuit
    concluded that clause (iv) was unconstitutionally overbroad.

    This is a fairly messy case. Hansen ran an "adult adoption" immigration
    scam and cheated desperate people out of $2 million. The district court
    found him guilty. Hansen appealed, arguing that the law that made it
    illegal to "encourag[e] or induc[e]" an alien to stay illegally was
    overbroad and violated the 1st amendment.

    Lucky for him, shortly after that the Ninth Circuit ruled in a related
    case that the language was indeed overbroad, and a three judge panel
    then reversed his conviction. The next stage of appeal was for the
    government to ask the full Ninth Circuit, all 29 judges, to review it,
    known as "en banc", which requires a majority of them to agree to the rehearing. Nine said yes, but that's not enough. Then the government
    appealed to SCOTUS who agreed to take the case.

    SCOTUS said to the Ninth Circuit (as they often do), you're wrong,
    that law is fine, it's not overbroad. It's remanded back to the Ninth
    Circuit who will presumably say since the law is OK the district
    court's decision stands, he's still guilty, we're done. I don't see
    any need to send it back to the district since SCOTUS didn't disagree
    with anything that court did.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)