Features

<b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>The U.S. Supreme Court last year continued to express concern about government overreach, and otherwise handed down decisions favorable to defendants. Although the Court rendered only one major criminal law decision in that term, many other cases it decided hold important lessons for defense counsel.

Features

In Lagos v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporate victims of criminal offenses cannot recover expenses incurred from internal investigations that the federal government has neither requested nor required under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996,

Features

<b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>The United States Supreme Court's October Term 2017 was a good year for criminal defendants in areas as varied as the Fourth Amendment, obstruction of justice, the death penalty, and criminal restitution. There was only one major criminal law decision this term — <i>Carpenter v. United States</i> — but there were several decisions that defense counsel would do well to study.

Features

The ruling restricting the collection of historical cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant aims to be narrow in scope, but legal experts argue it may have repercussions for years to come.

Features

In a 5-4 decision, with four justices dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's practice of instituting review on only a subset of an <i>inter partes</i> review (IPR) petitioner's validity challenges.

Features

<b><i>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</b></i><p>Is <i>inter partes</i> review of a patent grant compatible with Article III and the Seventh Amendment? That was the question presented in <i>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</i> and the U.S. Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.

Features

<b><i>U.S. Supreme Court Denial of Cert Leaves Statute Vague</i></b><p>This article analyzes the confusion faced by commodity futures traders in assessing whether their trading strategies constitute illegal spoofing and examines whether the CFTC and Seventh Circuit have provided sufficient guidance on the distinction between spoofing and legitimate trading activity.

Features

<b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>In Part One, we discussed the public concern over unfairness in asset forfeiture and analyzed the Supreme Court case — <i>United States v. Bajakajian</i> — that looked to the Excessive Fines Clause to limit the government's authority to forfeit property. In Part Two, we consider possible reforms that would allow defendants to challenge forfeitures as disproportionate under a fairer and more appropriate analysis.