Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
US v. Camacho-Arellano, 07-5427, concerned a challenge to the district court's imposition of a fifty-seven months' imprisonment in a conviction of a Mexican citizen for unlawful reentry into the U.S. after deportation. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, because defendant was sentenced before Kimbrough v. U.S. and because Kimbrough permits district court judges to impose a variance based on disagreement with the disparities created by the existence of "fast track" early-disposition programs for illegal-reentry cases in other jurisdictions.
Shaneberger v. Jones, 07-2211, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief, challenging his conviction for felony murder and other convictions. In affirming the denial of the petition, the court held that the state court was not unreasonable in holding that defendant had failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not challenging the trial court's denial of motion to suppress custodial statements. The court also held that, because defendant has demonstrated no reversible error in the district court's decision with respect to the suppression issue, it adopted the harmless error analysis of the district court with respect to the severance issue.
Children's Ctr. for Developmental Enrichment v. Machle, 09-3382, concerned a suit brought by the parents of a minor disabled child against a private school and others for expelling their son. In affirming the district court's decision following an administrator's final decision dismissing the school as an improper party to the action, the court held that the school has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), and affirmed the State Level Appeals Officer's conclusion that the school's improper service claim was moot because all substantive claims against it were dismissed. The court also held that the district court was correct in concluding that it was not authorized to award attorney's fees under either section 1988 or the Rehabilitation Act, and that the district court was correct in concluding that even though it has inherent authority to award attorney's fees in exceptional cases before it, the inherent authority of a court to award attorney fees applies only to those matters originally heard by that court.