LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, REMEDIES, WATER LAW
• Nat'l Wildlife Fed. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv.

ADMIRALTY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
• US v. Shi

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW
• Nicanor-Romero v. Mukasey

LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, REMEDIES, WATER LAW
Nat'l Wildlife Fed. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 06-35011
In an environment dispute involving salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a district court's decision rejecting a 2004 biological opinion addressing the effects of proposed operations of Federal Columbia River Power System dams and facilities on the listed fish is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly held that the opinion's jeopardy analysis was structurally flawed, rendering it incompatible with ESA; 2) the opinion's analysis of impacts on critical habitat was defective as well; and 3) on the record, requiring consultation with states and tribes constituted a permissible procedural restriction rather than an impermissible substantive restraint, and there was no abuse of discretion in such remedy. (Amended opinion) Read more...

ADMIRALTY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
US v. Shi, No. 06-10389
A foreign national who forcibly seizes control of a foreign vessel in international waters may be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when such vessel is intercepted by federal authorities. Foreign national's conviction and sentence for seizing control over a ship by force, and performing an act of violence likely to endanger the safety of the ship, is affirmed over challenges regarding: 1) the district court's jurisdiction; 2) the sufficiency of the indictment; 3) the admissibility of a statement to an agent; 4) the admissibility of letters seized from defendant's bunk; and 5) the constitutionality of his sentence. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW
Nicanor-Romero v. Mukasey, No. 03-73564
Petition for review of an order of removal is granted where the government failed to show that petitioner's California Penal Code section 647.6(a) misdemeanor conviction, for annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18, made him removable on the ground that it constituted a "crime involving moral turpitude" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Read more...