I get confused by all the terms in a decision I happen to be looking at US
v Hansen. syllabus here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-179#writing-22-179_SYLLABUS

It says "reversed and remanded", and as I poke through the thicket of
trials and appeals I find at the very end:

The District Court rejected Hansen’s argument, but the Ninth Circuit
concluded that clause (iv) was unconstitutionally overbroad.

So I'm guessing that the "reversed" decision was the one by the Ninth
Circuit and it was "remanded" back to the District Court to "rethink it"?
And all the hundreds of words following outline *how* the District Court
should be looking at it? Can the District Court just decide the same way
they had previously or are the basically compelled to accept the motion to dismiss? Or does it throw it back to the original court to retry the
case given the DC's guidance?

Altogether I find it very confusing... /b\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

I get confused by all the terms in a decision I happen to be looking
at US v Hansen. syllabus here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-179#writing-22-179_SYL
LABUS

It says "reversed and remanded", and as I poke through the thicket of
trials and appeals I find at the very end:

The District Court rejected Hansen’s argument, but the Ninth
Circuit concluded that clause (iv) was unconstitutionally
overbroad.

So I'm guessing that the "reversed" decision was the one by the Ninth
Circuit and it was "remanded" back to the District Court to "rethink
it"? And all the hundreds of words following outline *how* the
District Court should be looking at it? Can the District Court just
decide the same way they had previously or are the basically compelled
to accept the motion to dismiss? Or does it throw it back to the
original court to retry the case given the DC's guidance?

Altogether I find it very confusing... /b\

First you have to understand that normally the district court determines
facts, and those facts generally aren't reviewable by an appellate court.

I haven't read the opinion in your case, but it appears to have been
remanded to the 9th Circuit, which is supposed to "re-think" it but in a
way that is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling. That could well
result in it being sent back to the District Court. And that court could
come to the same conclusion, if that conclusion, based on the facts, is consistent with the Supreme Court decision. It's rather bureaucratic,
but makes sense.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/23/2023 12:00 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:

I get confused by all the terms in a decision I happen to be looking at US
v Hansen. syllabus here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-179#writing-22-179_SYLLABUS

It says "reversed and remanded", and as I poke through the thicket of
trials and appeals I find at the very end:

The District Court rejected Hansen’s argument, but the Ninth Circuit
concluded that clause (iv) was unconstitutionally overbroad.

So I'm guessing that the "reversed" decision was the one by the Ninth
Circuit and it was "remanded" back to the District Court to "rethink it"? And all the hundreds of words following outline *how* the District Court should be looking at it? Can the District Court just decide the same way they had previously or are the basically compelled to accept the motion to dismiss? Or does it throw it back to the original court to retry the
case given the DC's guidance?

Altogether I find it very confusing... /b\

"Remanded" usually means "sent back to the court whose decision we are reversing." So I think it is "remanded" back to the Ninth Circuit to
rethink their decision in light of the hundreds of words in the opinion.
And unless the Ninth can think of another reason to overturn the
district court's decision, they will in turn "remand" the case back to
District Court. Which will, in turn, either hold a new trial(1) or
simply sentence Hanson in accordance with the law in question.

(1) If the original trial did not reach a verdict/decision.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It appears that Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> said: >https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-179#writing-22-179_SYLLABUS

It says "reversed and remanded", and as I poke through the thicket of
trials and appeals I find at the very end:

The District Court rejected HansenÂ’s argument, but the Ninth Circuit
concluded that clause (iv) was unconstitutionally overbroad.

This is a fairly messy case. Hansen ran an "adult adoption" immigration
scam and cheated desperate people out of $2 million. The district court
found him guilty. Hansen appealed, arguing that the law that made it
illegal to "encourag[e] or induc[e]" an alien to stay illegally was
overbroad and violated the 1st amendment.

Lucky for him, shortly after that the Ninth Circuit ruled in a related
case that the language was indeed overbroad, and a three judge panel
then reversed his conviction. The next stage of appeal was for the
government to ask the full Ninth Circuit, all 29 judges, to review it,
known as "en banc", which requires a majority of them to agree to the rehearing. Nine said yes, but that's not enough. Then the government
appealed to SCOTUS who agreed to take the case.

SCOTUS said to the Ninth Circuit (as they often do), you're wrong,
that law is fine, it's not overbroad. It's remanded back to the Ninth
Circuit who will presumably say since the law is OK the district
court's decision stands, he's still guilty, we're done. I don't see
any need to send it back to the district since SCOTUS didn't disagree
with anything that court did.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)