Minnesota Lawyer Blog

Minnesota Lawyer published an article this week on how the recent loosening of some of the shackles placed on judges by the federal sentencing guidelines might impact things here in Minnesota. (See "Local federal judges now have more breathing room in sentencing.")

Minnesota has long been at the epicenter of a struggle over how much authority the federal judiciary should have in imposing sentences. Who can forget the constitutional crisis occasioned five years ago when a congressional committee attempted to delve in to the sentencing practices of local U.S. District Court Judge James Rosenbaum? The committee attempted to subpoena the records of cases in which Rosenbaum issued downward departures after Rosenbaum voluntarily testified before the committee advocating greater sentencing discretion for judges. (Click here for more background on this dispute.) The Inquisition-like tactic ignited a firestorm of controversy. The separation-of-powers doctrine was explicitly created to prevent such ham-handed attempts by one branch of government to intrude on the prerogatives of another.

As the Minnesota Lawyer article points out, the U.S. Supreme Court has been moving in the direction of giving judges more discretion to deviate (both upward and downward) from the sentences contained in the guidelines. The high court last month went as far as to strike down caselaw in the 8th Circuit making it extremely difficult for judges to deviate.

To me, it's just common sense to give judges meaningful sentencing discretion. The sentence an offender deserves is highly fact specific. While I think both judges and society in general benefit from guidance to make sure there is some overall consistency, that "guidance" should not handcuff judges by becoming virtually unbreakable rules. There will be cases when a harsher penalty is called for -- and cases where a more lenient sentence is called for. Judges should not have to jump through extraordinary hoops to deviate from the guidelines. We appoint our best legal minds to the federal bench, so why not let them actually use those minds? If we are not going to give judges any real discretion, we might as well develop a software program to impose sentences -- it would be a lot cheaper. But I, for one, would rather have a human being make those decisions after hearing all the facts. It's good to know that the U.S. Supreme Court apparently agrees with me.

Former Minnesota State Bar Association President Jarvis Jones has secured his day in state court in Georgia, where he is suing five current or former employees of his former employer, The St. Paul Companies (now known as Travelers).

Jones has been suing his ex-employer for more than five years. He moved to Georgia while he was MSBA president to serve as regional vice president of the company's small commercial business unit, but was terminated in February 2002. He sued the company in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota for race discrimination and defamation, but lost in 2005 after a 10-day trial. (See "Jones loses race-bias suit against St. Paul Travelers," in the May 15, 2005, edition of Minnesota Lawyer, password required.)

Nine months after the verdict, Jones sued his ex-employer in state court in Georgia for tortious interference with contractual relations and interference with prospective business relations. (Jones had not raised tortious interference claims in the federal litigation.)

U.S. District Court Judge James Rosenbaum declined to enjoin the Georgia litigation under the federal Anti-Injunction Act, and the 8th Circuit affirmed last week. Because the tortious interference claims had not been actually litigated in federal court, Travelers should raise its res judicata argument in state court, not federal court, the 8th Circuit reasoned.

While this is a victory for Jones, it may prove short-lived. In his ruling last year, Rosenbaum said: "[T]he Minnesota action encompassed virtually every claim that might have been raised from the relationship between plaintiff and his former employer and its employees [in the Georgia action]. ... This Court is confident that its Georgian sister court will analyze all of these issues in determining whether the matter may be permitted to proceed."

Speaking of the Anti-Injunction Act (as I do in my post above), a federal court in Maryland has granted injunctive relief in a case that should be of interest to family law attorneys here in a Canada-bordering state with many Indian reservations.

Our sister publication, The Maryland Daily Record, reports on a case where an Indian mother, a resident of Kahnawake Mohawk Territory in Quebec, obtained custody of her son through a federal court order. The parents and the child were on a vacation to the Indian Country and the parents decided to remain. After the parents separated, the boy's grandmother took the child to New York State. After two years of litigation in U.S., Canadian and Indian courts, the mother was awarded custody.

The father later sued for custody in state court in New York, but the federal court enjoined the suit under the Anti-Injunction Act. The mother's attorney, Stephen J. Cullen of Maryland, said it was the first time a federal court ever enjoined a state family court action.

Of course, an appeal is expected.