Now that we’re all immigration lawyers, we figured we’d better take a gander at the complaint filed yesterday by the feds, seeking to strike down Arizona’s new immigration law.  The feds say Arizona’s law is preempted by federal law and policy, and so must be struck down under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, art. VI, cl. 2.  (You can read the complaint for yourself here.  The text of the law can be found here.) 

After reading the complaint in its entirety, we have to say that it’s mostly stupid. 

The law was hotly criticized by the Obama administration even before it was enacted back in April, so it’s no surprise that this action was filed.  We’re surprised it took this long to do it.  And we’re even more surprised, given how long it took, that the feds did such a shoddy job of it.

In broad strokes, Arizona wants to deter illegal aliens from sticking around in Arizona.  To that end, among other things, the law:

• Tells Arizona police they have to verify someone’s lawful presence if, during an otherwise lawful stop, they have reasonable suspicion that the person might be here unlawfully.  §11-1051(B) [referred to as Section 2 in the complaint]. 
• Amends existing law, permitting police to make a warrantless arrest if the officer has probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor or felony has occurred, to add that the police can make a warrantless arrest on probable cause to believe the suspect committed an offense for which he could be deported.  §11-1051(E) [in Section 2 of the bill, but perplexingly referred to as Section 6 in the complaint]. 
• says Arizona citizens can sue for money damages if any Arizona state or local official or agency “adopts or implements a policy” of not enforcing federal immigration laws to the extent permitted by federal law.  §11-1051(G) [Section 2]. 
• makes it a crime of trespassing to be present in Arizona in violation of federal law.  §13-1509(A) [Section 3]. 
• amends existing state law against smuggling human beings (§13-2319 [Section 4]) to permit the police to stop a car they reasonably suspect to be in violation of both a traffic law and the already-existing law against smuggling.  
• prohibits illegal aliens from seeking work in the state.  §13-2928(C) [Section 5].
• makes it illegal for “a person who is in violation of a criminal offense” to transport or harbor illegal aliens.  §13-2929(A) [Section 5].

The general argument the feds make is deliciously ironic: Requiring compliance with federal law would conflict with federal law.  At first glance, it seems like everyone at the DOJ who approved this complaint skipped Logic 101, and listened instead to John Cleese’s logic monologue on the Holy Grail album.  But this is not really the stupid bit. 

Their argument is more along the lines of (1) the feds get to determine policy of how and when the feds enforce their own laws; (2) Arizona isn’t telling the feds what to do, but it’s going to be enforcing the same laws more thoroughly; so (3) Arizona is messing with the feds’ policy.  This is one of the stupid bits, because nowhere does Arizona tell the feds what to do or how to do it.

The Complaint commits some intellectual dishonesty, however, to make it seem so anyway.  They repeatedly misquote the Arizona law to say a citizen can sue “any” official or agency for failing to enforce the immigration law.  They make it sound like Arizona citizens could sue federal officials for failing to enforce federal law.  But that’s not at all what is said.  The Arizona law only permits a private cause of action against Arizona officialdom, for failure to enforce that particular section of Arizona law.  It is obvious that the DOJ knew what it was doing in trying to make it sound otherwise, and this lame attempt to deceive the court (and the media) is not what we’d have expected.

We also might point out to the feds that policy is different from law.  The Supremacy Clause only prohibits the states from conflicting with federal law.  There is nothing saying the states have to go along with the policies of whoever happens to be enforcing such law at any given time.  The whole stepping-on-our-policy-toes argument is pretty much irrelevant to this analysis.

The feds also complain that Arizona’s goal — attrition of illegal aliens — is only one of many other goals the feds have.  The feds are more focused on getting rid of criminal or terrorist aliens, and don’t really care so much about the rest, says the complaint.  So Arizona locking up the others would be contrary to federal policy and here we go again. 

Paragraph 36 alone makes any number of howlers here.  It says the Arizona law “attempts to second-guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities.”  It tries to “directly regulate immigration.”  It “disrupts the national enforcement regime.”  It attempts to “set state-specific immigration policy.”  It “legislates in an area constitutionally reserved to the federal government.”  It “conflicts with federal immigration laws.” 

We’re not particular fans of the Arizona law, but an honest observer would have to admit that it does none of those things.

-=-=-=-=-

The feds make the bizarre contention that Arizona is “supplanting the federal government’s immigration regime with its own.”  Really?  Where?  Nowhere does Arizona create additional barriers to immigration other than those already enacted in federal law.  Nowhere does Arizona reduce the federal barriers to immigration.  Arizona doesn’t restate or redefine the federal laws. Nowhere does the new law “establish the terms and conditions for entry and continued presence” or “regulate the status of aliens.” All the state did was refer to federal law as it already exists.  Arizona’s only saying that, if you violate federal law in Arizona, then it’s a violation of Arizona law, too.  If it’s not a violation of federal law, it can’t be a violation of the Arizona law.

It’s as if the feds are saying the Supremacy Clause means that, if the feds have outlawed certain conduct, the states cannot outlaw the same conduct.  Forget “as if” — that’s precisely what the feds are saying here.  And that’s nonsense.  Outlawing something the feds also outlaw is safe, legal and commonplace.

The complaint repeats several times that the Arizona law would force the feds to change their priorities and shift their focus away from criminals and terrorists.  The law doesn’t tell the feds what to do, however, or how to do it.  So what is the complaint on about?

It finally explains itself in Paragraph 44:  The number of police requests for verification of immigration status is going to increase.  The Department of Homeland Security will have to spend more time answering those requests.  That’s going to take resources away from stuff the feds think is more important.

The legal term for this argument is “horseshit.”  As in most states, Arizona police already had the discretion to seek such verification on a case-by-case basis.  It’s already part of DHS’s job to provide that verification.  The complaint’s argument is that any increase in demand for DHS’s services already being provided — doing more X when they’d rather be doing Y — would interfere with federal priorities, and “such interference with federal priorities, driven by state-imposed burdens on federal resources, constitutes a violation of the Supremacy Clause.”  Again, horseshit.

Also, it’s hard to imagine how even a sizeable burst in demand for such basic data would divert DHS agents from their field work or whatnot.  This is 2010, after all.  We may not have flying cars or interstellar tourism, but we sure as hell have mad database skillz.  Nigh-instantaneous searches of digital records is commonplace and cheap.  The complaint’s argument here just doesn’t jibe with reality.

-=-=-=-=-

To their credit, the feds did try to make a legitimate argument here.  The problem is, it appears to have been written by lawyers who have less than a passing acquaintance with criminal law or civil-rights law.  The Arizona law is a criminal law, not an immigration law, but the feds seem to have put their immigration people on the job.  Mistake.

The legitimate argument is that people are going to wind up getting detained when they haven’t violated the federal law, and they’re going to be stuck there because they don’t happen to be carrying proof of their lawful presence with them at the time.  No matter what legislative fixes they add to prevent it, the truth is that people are going to get hassled because they look Mexican.  There are valid civil-rights problems that could easily arise in the enforcement of the law. 

But that’s an issue with the enforcement of the law, not with the law itself.  And anyway, it has nothing to do with the Supremacy Clause.  Sorry.

-=-=-=-=-

The complaint keeps dishing out the stupid.  Starting on paragraph 57, it goes on about the bit letting cops make a warrantless arrest if they believe the suspect committed a deportable offense. 

The feds acknowledge that Arizona law already allowed cops to make a warrantless arrest on probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor or felony had occurred.  So the issue is whether there are any deportable offenses that aren’t misdemeanors or felonies. 

§13-601 describes only three classifications of offenses: felonies, misdemeanors and petty offenses.  A cursory review of the petty offenses in Arizona law turns up things like feeding wildlife, failure to appear, giving tobacco to a minor, and such.  There may be something Arizona calls a petty offense that could get you deported, but we haven’t found it. 

This bit, like the rest of the complaint, is much ado about nothing.  It doesn’t seem like Arizona has given its police any more power to make warrantless arrests than before.

The feds also go on about how this section “makes no exception for aliens whose removability has already been resolved by federal authorities.”  But it beggars reason to suspect that the feds have already vetted whether your crime should result in deportation before you have even been arrested for the crime in the first place.  If any of the DOJ lawyers who wrote the complaint are reading this, deportation tends to come after conviction, not before arrest.  Just saying.

-=-=-=-=-

We could go on, but it’s getting late, and we have actual work to do.  We happen to dislike the Arizona law, though it’s obvious that Arizona is in a tough position.  We don’t like the federal immigration laws any better.  They make as much sense as going in the other direction and just annexing Mexico and giving everyone there the vote.  (Actually, that makes more sense than current U.S. policy.  But then again, our stance on immigration is very close to “the more the merrier.”)

It was a foregone conclusion that the Obama administration was going to challenge this law.  They could have gone with an Equal Protection argument, but they didn’t.  Instead they went with the Supremacy Clause.  And that’s revealing.

It reveals that they didn’t think the civil rights issues were winners.  But more than that, it reveals that the administration thinks its policies to be supreme to those of the states.  That’s not what the Supremacy Clause deals with.  That only deals with actual laws, created by Congress, not policies adopted by a president.  It is an act of dangerous hubris for the administration to make these arguments.  A wise court will shut this case down, if only to protect the country from an increasingly powerful federal executive.

But also because it’s just stupid.

There are four Mondays left in June.  Four more days in which the Supreme Court is expected to announce its decisions in the 27 or so cases still out there this term.  That’s about one case per day from now till then.  We’re picturing the Justices pulling all-nighters, stacks of empty pizza boxes in the halls at 2 a.m. next to the burn bags (do they still use burn bags there?), and sleepy zombie-like clerks dropping in their tracks every now and then.

Some of those cases have to do with boring old civ pro or shipping or labor law.  But a whole bunch are about the cool stuff, criminal law.  Here are a few of the criminal cases we’re watching particularly closely:

Black v. United States
Weyrauch v. United States
Skilling v. United States

This trio of cases attack the “honest services” fraud law.  18 U.S.C. § 1346 was supposed to prevent political corruption, but Congress wrote it so sloppily that it’s become a catch-all crime for federal prosecutors.  Anyone can get charged with it, and nobody knows what it means.  The Court telegraphed its dislike of the statute during oral arguments of all three cases.  We’re going to be shocked and appalled if the statute survives the month.  (Read more of our commentary here.)  The feds also see this going the way of the dodo, as evidenced by their rush to add other charges to prominent cases after the first oral arguments in December.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

This one also delves into the constitutionality of a law, this one intended to stop people from providing assistance to terrorists.  Like the honest services statute, however, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) is pretty darn vague.  It also seems to limit perfectly lawful speech, which would also be unconstitutional.  The feds (represented by nominee Elena Kagan) seem to want the law interpreted very broadly, to maximum effect, but during oral arguments the Supremes expressed deep problems with the statute.  It might get kicked back to the lower courts for more fine-tuning of the issues, though, rather than an outright invalidation of the law.

Dillon v. United States

There are a lot of federal inmates serving unfairly long sentences, due to the bizarre discrepancy in sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine.  (See our latest piece on this here.)  In 2007, the Guidelines were amended a teeny bit, permitting a 2-level reduction for crack cases.  In 2008, that was made retroactive, so prisoners could get resentenced.  Dillon wanted to get resentenced.  But he wanted more than the 2-level reduction.  He wanted a departure from the Guidelines recommendation itself, as permitted by Booker.  But the feds say Booker only applies to full sentencing proceedings, not to resentencings like this — this is just an adjustment of the guideline range that should have been applied to a pre-Booker sentence.  As Scalia pointed out at oral argument, that would require the courts to essentially disregard Booker.  And given the universal loathing of the crack/powder disparity, we think a finding for Dillon would give the courts the ability to take the injustice into account and impose variance sentences more proportional to those for powder.

McDonald v. City of Ohio

A follow-up to the Heller case a couple of years ago, which said as a matter of federal law that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to own a gun, which predated the Constitution.  In McDonald, the issue is whether that applies equally to the states as well, or whether the states can limit or regulate the right to bear arms.  The Court seems likely to narrowly rule that the 2nd Amdt. is incorporated into the 14th, and that the right’s a fundamental one that all the states have to respect, but not get into whether this limitation or that regulation is constitutional.  Those details can be dealt with in the lower courts on remand.

Magwood v. Patterson
Holland v. Florida

Habeas cases that we admit not reading up on when they were argued.  In Magwood, the defendant already won a federal habeas petition, and got resentenced.  Now he’s got a second federal habeas, challenging the new sentence on constitutional grounds.  He could have challenged the original sentence on those same grounds.  So the issue is whether this new petition is a “second or successive” claim that has to be rejected under the AEDPA.  Just on a gut level, we don’t think the defendant’s got much of an argument here. 

Holland deals with a defendant whose habeas petition was filed too late, due to the negligence of his attorney.  The defendant wants the limitations period tolled equitably, in the interests of justice.  Florida says equitable tolling should never be allowed.  Seems like the Court’s going to allow it, but clarify when it’s available.

-=-=-=-=-

Also, we’re still waiting on an important case out of New York’s Second Department, which might create a new emergency exception to the warrant requirement.  Fingers crossed.

On June 25 last year, the Supreme Court held in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that in a drug case the prosecution can’t simply use a sworn lab report to prove the existence of a controlled substance. If the chemist doesn’t testify, it violates the Confrontation Clause. (See our previous post about it here.)

Four days later, on June 29, the Court granted cert. in Briscoe v. Virginia, to decide whether the states can get around this requirement if they permit the defendant to call the lab analyst as a defense witness. Oral arguments are scheduled for next Monday, and we can’t wait to hear how the Commonwealth of Virginia tries to make its case.

It seems to us that there is an obvious burden-shifting problem here. The state, and only the state, has the burden of proving every element of the crime. Since the Winship case in 1970, this has been a due process requirement of the Constitution. Unless he asserts an affirmative defense, the defendant has no burden to prove a thing.

So the prosecution has to prove an element. It needs a forensic test to prove it. It needs the testimony of the analyst to introduce the results of that test. The defense does not have a burden to prove anything, one way or the other, about the test.

But Virginia wants to be able to prove its case using only the lab report, and get around the Confrontation Clause by saying the defense is allowed to call the analyst if they want to confront him.

First, who cares whether the state allows the defense to call the analyst or not? Last time we checked, the defense could call any witness they chose, by subpoena if need be. The defense always has the opportunity to put the analyst on the stand as a defense witness. This “permission” doesn’t actually give the defense permission to do anything it couldn’t already do. All it does is imply wrongly that the defense couldn’t have done so otherwise.

Second, the state cannot impose a burden of proof on the defense like this. Virginia’s scheme essentially precludes the defense from challenging the state’s evidence during the state’s case. It forces the defense to act affirmatively and put on a defense case in order to challenge the state’s evidence. That’s a big due process violation.

Third, the state does not get around the Confrontation Clause by shifting the burden to the defendant to call those witnesses it wishes to confront. In a murder case, it would absurd to let the prosecution introduce an eyewitness’s written account of what happened, and no more, so long as the defendant himself could have called the eyewitness if he wanted to. That’s indistinguishable from what Virginia wants to do.

-=-=-=-=-

Lots of prosecutors’ offices are hoping that the Supremes will side with Virginia on this one. Particularly in the more amateurish offices, there is a feeling that the Melendez-Diaz decision imposes too great a cost on the criminal justice system, and imposes unworkable inefficiencies, by requiring chemists to take time off from their busy jobs to testify at trial. An amicus brief filed by half the nation’s attorneys general makes these arguments.

But just look here at New York City, the busiest criminal courts and crime lab in the world. Lab reports are used in the grand jury, where there is no confrontation right, but the chemists themselves must testify at trial. Somehow, this requirement has not bankrupted the city. Getting the chemist to show up is just one more minor hassle that prosecutors have to deal with, no more challenging than getting cops to show up. The requirement is so minor that nobody really thinks about it.

-=-=-=-=-

Still, Melendez-Diaz was a 5-4 decision. And one of the five, Justice Souter, has been replaced by former prosecutor Justice Sotomayor. So people are thinking that she’s going to be more pro-prosecution here, and help the Court either reverse or severely limit that decision.

We don’t think so. We’d remind Court observers that Sotomayor came out of the Manhattan DA’s office, not one of the “amateur hour” offices. Her own personal experience is that requiring the chemist to testify at trial is really no big deal.

-=-=-=-=-

So we’re looking forward to the oral arguments next week. If Scalia gives as good as he did in last June’s decision, and if we’re right about Sotomayor, then Virginia’s in for a spirited beatdown.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama signed into law the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. As usual, the Act included provisions that had nothing whatsoever to do with National Defense Authorization. And one of the tacked-on provisions was the much-debated Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

We wrote about this back on May 1. It was one of our longer analyses, but our closing paragraphs sum it up fairly succinctly:

In short, we don’t have a legal or constitutional problem with hate crime laws. They actually seem to be a natural extension of our criminal jurisprudence. But [the House version of the bill] seems to have been passed without anyone actually reading it (not surprising, as it hardly spend any time in committee).

An administration and the same-party majority in Congress just want to push a law through, and so they will. And they will wind up passing a law that probably doesn’t mean what they wanted it to mean, and which might not stand up under scrutiny.
So what’s new?

Well, now we have a final version (read it here or in relevant part at the end of this post), codified at 18 U.S.C. §249. So let’s see what the law as passed actually says, whether it means what they wanted it to mean, and whether it might stand up under scrutiny, shall we?

As passed, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act amends the existing Hate Crimes law so that:

1. If you went after your victim because of the (actual or perceived) race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, “gender identity” or disability of any person (not just that of the victim)…

2. And you either hurt them on purpose, or you tried to hurt them with a weapon of some kind…

3. Then your maximum prison sentence gets increased to 10 years.

4. And you can get life if anyone died, if anyone was kidnapped, if there was aggravated sexual abuse, or you even tried to kill/kidnap/sexually abuse.

-=-=-=-=-

This is slightly — but only slightly — different from the version originally passed by the House back in the Spring.

To get federal jurisdiction, they need a federal hook. Only race, color, religion and national origin seem to be automatically federal. So the statute has a “crossing state lines” and “interstate commerce” hook for offenses caused by religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. (Why religion and national origin are included in both sections is beyond us.)

That’s not a huge hurdle, frankly. Interstate travel and interstate commerce are so broadly defined — and have been for generations now — that most crimes are going to fit the bill. If a weapon was used, for example, it had to have been made somewhere, and even if you made it yourself it affected interstate commerce as you didn’t buy one at Wal-Mart.

The Office of Legal Counsel has issued a memorandum saying the Act’s language passes constitutional muster. With respect to the Commerce Clause, we’re inclined to agree. The Commerce Clause may be an absolute mockery as interpreted throughout living memory, but it is what it is, and that’s that.

-=-=-=-=-

But isn’t this a thought crime, you ask?

Isn’t this just a second bite at the apple for the government?

Isn’t it already against the law to hurt, kill, shoot, blow up, kidnap, rape, etc.?

Doesn’t it put a greater value on the life of selected victims, as opposed to the rest of us?

Isn’t this the opposite of equal protection of the laws?

How is this just, you ask?

You’re not alone. It seems like this is the one common ground where conservative commentators and criminal defense attorneys seem to agree — they generally hate this law.

We happen to be both conservative and a criminal defense attorney. And yet we can’t help but think this law isn’t such a big deal. It’s really not that objectionable.

In fact, it seems to fit into our jurisprudence quite naturally.

-=-=-=-=-

Is this a thought crime? Yes, absolutely. Just like almost every other crime out there.

Crime is something so harmful to society that we restrain the offender’s liberty, take his property, or even take his life. Not every harmful act counts, therefore. We don’t kill people for accidents.

So how do we tell which harmful acts get punished, and which ones don’t?

We look at what the heck you were thinking. For any given act, your punishment will depend entirely on what was going through your mind at the time.

If it was just an accident, then it’s not your fault, and we’re not going to punish you. If you were just a little kid, or severely retarded, or insane, or otherwise can’t be accountable for your actions, then we’re not going to punish you. There’s no point in punishing you.

We’ll punish you a little bit if you should have known better, or you should have been careful. You weren’t trying to do anything wrong, but you should have paid more attention. Your mental state is the key. Your mental state was a little bit culpable, so you get punished a little bit.

We’ll punish you more if you were just being reckless. You weren’t trying to hurt someone, but you knew it could have happened, and you went ahead and did it anyway. Your mental state was more culpable, so you get punished more.

We’ll punish you a lot if you knew it was going to happen. It might not have been your purpose, you weren’t out to hurt someone, you were trying to do something else, but you knew that someone was probably going to get hurt in the process. Your mental state was a lot culpable, so you get punished a lot.

And of course, if you were really trying to hurt someone, and sure enough they got hurt, well then of course you get punished the most.

So all crimes (with limited exceptions for strict liability crimes) are thought crimes.

This hate-crime legislation is nothing more than a new twist on this very old concept. Just like with any other crime, it looks at what you, the perpetrator, thought you were doing. You had a belief about your victim, and because of that belief, you tried to hurt him.

It’s not your mental state about the risk of harm — as all the others are — it is different. It’s your mental state about the nature of your victim.

But that also makes perfect sense, in our jurisprudence.

-=-=-=-=-

Throughout our country’s history — from the fights against religious persecution, to the war against slavery, to women’s rights and the civil rights battles of the 1950s — we have come to accept a basic policy: IT IS BAD FOR SOCIETY WHEN PEOPLE ARE MISTREATED BASED ON ATTRIBUTES BEYOND THEIR CONTROL.

That is simply a no-brainer for anyone who loves freedom, individual rights, and equal justice. Americans cannot stand a bully, and will not tolerate those who hurt people for reasons their victims couldn’t help.

Nobody can help what race they happen to be. Nobody can help what religion they happen to have been born into. Nobody gets to choose whether to be born a boy or a girl. Nobody gets to choose what country they happen to have been born in.

Hurting someone because of uncontrollable attributes like these is a clear affront to society. Something we’d typically classify as a crime. It makes perfect sense to define a particular crime of hurting people because of personal attributes beyond their control.

And in recent years, our society has come to accept the fact that other attributes are also beyond our control. Nobody can help how their brains are wired with respect to sexual attraction, it’s inborn. Nobody can help the fact that they’re missing limbs, or are mentally retarded, or otherwise disabled — wouldn’t they if they could?

For our entire lifetime, there has been federal hate-crime legislation. The 1969 law covered race, color, religion, ethnicity and national origin. In later years, we added sex and disability. It makes perfect sense to now expand the already-existing law to include crimes committed against people who happen to be gay, or who were born with a girl’s brain in a boy’s body.

This is not giving extra protections to these people. It is giving extra punishment to those who would hurt someone simply for having been born. Those offenders cause extra harm to society, more than the already grievous harm caused by “ordinary” murders, rapes and assaults. Extra harm to society means extra punishment.

It’s as simple as that.

-=-=-=-=-

Here is the relevant text of the bill.

Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

(a) In General-

““`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–

“““““(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

“““““(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

“““““““`(i) death results from the offense; or
“““““““`(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

““`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

“““““(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person–

“““““““`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

“““““““`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

“““““““““(I) death results from the offense; or

“““““““““(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

“““““(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–

“““““““`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–

“““““““““(I) across a State line or national border; or

“““““““““(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

“““““““`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

“““““““`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

“““““““`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–

“““““““““ (I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

“““““““““(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

““`(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

(b) Certification Requirement-

““`(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that–

“““““(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

“““““(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

“““““(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

“““““(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

““`(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

(c) Definitions- In this section–

““`(1) the term `bodily injury’ has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

““`(2) the term `explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

““`(3) the term `firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title;

““`(4) the term `gender identity’ means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and

““`(5) the term `State’ includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

(d) Statute of Limitations-

““`(1) OFFENSES NOT RESULTING IN DEATH- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.

““`(2) DEATH RESULTING OFFENSES- An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation.’.

For the record, our position on gun control is to use both hands, relax, and control your breathing. But let’s talk about the law.

Last year, the Supreme Court historically decided that the Second Amendment gives individuals a constitutional right to possess firearms. The ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, was that the right of the People to bear arms was an individual right (so it wasn’t limited to militias or the military), and that it was a pre-existing right (recognized by the Constitution, and not created by it). The Court said there’s room for reasonable regulation, but an outright ban is unconstitutional.

The District of Columbia, however, is not a state. The Heller decision only directly applies at the federal level, which includes D.C. Whether the same rule applies to the states hasn’t been formally decided yet. And what counts as reasonable regulation at the state level is also an open question.

Obviously, there are plenty of folks who would like these things to be decided. Some want this to remain strictly a federal issue — the Bill of Rights originally did not apply to the states, and only gradually over the years have most (but not all) of the individual rights therein been incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second, Third and Seventh Amendments have not yet been held to apply to the states.

Others, of course, want this individual right to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment’s “privileges and immunities clause.” (That clause is what gives individuals the Bill of Rights protections from governmental intrusions, at the state and local level, by virtue of their national citizenship. So it protects you from your local cops’ infringement of speech, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.)

The Circuits are split on the issue. The Ninth Circuit ruled earlier this year that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment to the state level. But the Seventh Circuit said no, it doesn’t. So it’s certainly a ripe issue for certiorari.

Any number of cases have been percolating in the system, really, to give the Supreme Court a chance to decide the issue. The NRA alone filed five cases on the issue in Illinois alone. So it hasn’t been so much a question of whether the Court would decide it, but which case it would choose to hear.

Well, this morning, the Supremes announced the case. McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) involves pretty much the same issues as Heller. Chicago’s gun-control laws are practically identical to those D.C. had, so it really is a good case to narrowly decide whether the rule should be extended to the states. (The various court filings can be found here.)

The Court’s calendar is full for the rest of the year, so oral arguments won’t be scheduled until January at the earliest.