Second Circuit: United States v. Thompson

Minor trafficking statute is not overbroad, since any material assistance provided to victims by charitable organizations that might fall within the proscriptions of the act do not prohibit the expressive associations protected under the First Amendment, and prosecutions are unlikely for assistance provided by family members, who would, in any even, lack the needed mens rea for culpability.

A mens rea requirement as to the victim's age in one section of the statute does not necessarily imply the same degree of knowledge for conviction under a provision providing increased penalties for a victim of an even lower age.

Venue is proper in the district where the minor was induced and enticed, despite the fact that the film was created elsewhere.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b424590-d624-49bf-bc3b-f406f744f01c/1/doc/16-2986_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b424590-d624-49bf-bc3b-f406f744f01c/1/hilite/ 

Second Circuit: Copeland v. Vance

As plaintiffs seek relief holding the law void for vagueness as to an entire category of folding knives, the challenge is construed as a facial challenge; a past enforcement against one of the plaintiffs provided sufficient notice of the proscribed activity, establishing that it is possible to enforce the law constitutionally -- therefore not facially unconstitutional.  While it is possible to enforce the law in a discriminatory manner, and there might be evidence of this discrimination in past enforcement, the law itself does not unduly invite such discrimination.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/2/doc/17-474_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/37d309e7-2938-46a7-887d-c286c9866ef7/2/hilite/

Eleventh Circuit: LABMD, Inc. v. FTC

FTC cease-and-desist order too vague to be enforced, since an identical order from a court would be unenforceable on its terms, and the order therefore does not abate a specific act or practice that violates the statute.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201616270.pdf

Second Circuit: US v. Castillo

Government's premature concession that advisory sentencing guidelines residual clause was void for vagueness did not forfeit the claim, as it's a question of law, and the court can decide on its own.

Offense can be defined for purposes of modified categorical review by combining common law, state codes, and MPC.

Recklessness suffices for the mental state when categorizing manslaughter as a crime of violence.

Under modified categorical review, state manslaughter statute is a crime of violence, as even an omission can(?) require recklessness.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c03aa681-4808-489f-8380-da2ee3800b29/2/doc/16-4129_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c03aa681-4808-489f-8380-da2ee3800b29/2/hilite/

Sixth Circuit: Altin Shuti v. Loretta Lynch

Immigration, Statutory Interpretation, Due Process


Immigration provision paralleling the ACCA residual clause is similarly void for vagueness.


Altin Shuti v. Loretta Lynch

Fourth Circuit: US v. Gaston Saunders

Administrative, Federalism, Vagueness

Law banning fishing except that regulated by Congressionally-instituted multistate compacts does not extend similar exceptions for fishing under plans drafted by multistate commissions not referenced by the Act.

Law is not vague for complexity.


US v. Gaston Saunders