Textualism
In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, which decreased federal sentences for drug offenses. Part of the law was designed to mitigate the impact of mandatory minimum sentences. The law includes a “safety valve” provision that says that certain drug offenders can avoid the mandatory minimum sentence if: (1) they do not have more than four criminal history points; (2) they do not have a prior three-point offense; and (3) a prior two-point offense. Convicted drug dealer, Mark Pulsifer, challenged his mandatory minimum sentence arguing that he does not have a prior two-point violation. Lower federal courts have split over the meaning of “and” in the statute. Pulsifer argues that the statute requires a prior three-point violation and a prior two-point violation. Prosecutors argue that the statute means that having any not all of the three elements means a mandatory minimum sentence. To read it otherwise, they say, makes the statute nonsensical, violating a cannon of textual interpretation. The U.S. Supreme Court has now decided to take up the case and decide what and means here. Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for the first day of the new term on October 2.
More textualism
The Indiana Court of Appeals released an opinion this week deciding whether the term “paperwork” in a search warrant allows for the seizure of a computer. In Plato v. State, police searched the defendant’s property for what the search warrant described as “paperwork relating to title work for vehicles.” During the search, the police seized Plato’s computer. Plato argued they did so unlawfully because a computer is not paperwork. The State argued that since paperwork could be digitally stored on a computer, the seizure was lawful. The Indiana Court of Appeals found no cases in Indiana addressing this issue. They cited the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which previously decided that containers that may contain documents may be seized under a search warrant calling for the seizure of documents. Analogizing to a container, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that the computer may contain digitized documents, and therefore may be seized.
Still more textualism
Also from the Indiana higher courts this week is the Indiana Supreme Court case Noblesville Ind. Bd. of Zoning v. FMG Indianapolis, LLC. In that case, the Town of Noblesville enacted a zoning ordinance banning pole signs, the definition of which includes billboards. FMG owned a billboard that was grandfathered in on the pole sign ban. However, the ordinance calls for the ban to kick in on the grandfathered signs if the signs are ever “relocated.” Following some storm damage to its sign, FMG repaired their sign and to effectuate the repairs had to move the sign’s posts to new holes a “few feet” away. The City of Noblesville interpreted this as “relocating” the sign and ordered it taken down. The Indiana Supreme Court found the ordinance ambiguous as to whether de minimis movement for repair purposes constitutes relocating. The Court employed the textualist cannon that ambiguity must be resolved against the drafter, so the sign stays up.
Originalism
The U.S. Supreme Court announced this week that it will hear oral arguments this November in a major Second Amendment case, United States v. Rahimi. In that case, Zackey Rahimi was charged with domestic battery for beating up his girlfriend in a parking lot. That charge came with a domestic violence restraining order which prohibited him from possessing a firearm. A few months after the parking lot episode, federal agents raided Rahimi’s home because he was a suspect in a series of shootings. In the raid, agents found Rahimi in possession of firearms in violation of the restraining order. He was charged federally with that offense, and now claims the order violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As Rahimi’s Second Amendment claim made its way through the appeal process, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen that New York’s handgun-licensing law was unconstitutional using an originalist approach. Based on Bruen, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found in favor of Rahimi ruling the restraining order law unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court will now attempt to square the Rahimi facts with the Bruen holding. They will certainly take an originalist approach, but Rahimi is a difficult set of facts. It should make for some interesting analysis.