Andy is an associate at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, where he was President of the Harvard National Security and Law Association and a Senior Articles Editor of the Harvard National Security Journal. Prior to law school, he interned for the Hudson Institute's Center for Political-Military Analysis, the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida, and the Baker Institute for Public Policy. Andy received his B.A. in political science and history magna cum laude from Rice University.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case concerning the Alien Tort Statute in which the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday, will give the court a chance to clarify the cryptic "touch and concern" standard.
Last month, the Fifth Circuit issued a split opinion in Adhikari v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., representing the first ATS case to be decided post-RJR Nabisco. The opinion, issued over a vigorous dissent, suggests that it may be premature to say that RJR Nabisco resolves the circuit split over the interpretation of “touch and concern.”
We summarize key points in the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in Wednesday's decision from a Fourth Circuit panel—which held, among other things, that warrantless accessing of historical cell site data violates the Fourth Amendment.
Perhaps of interest to Lawfare readers in the Boston area: Next Tuesday, the Harvard National Security & Law Association (NSLA) will host Brigadier General Mark Martins, the chief prosecutor for military commissions and lead trial counsel in the prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other accused perpetrators of the attacks of September 11, 2001, for a dinner event.
With opening statements made, prosecutors in the capital case against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev commenced their presentation of evidence. An overview of the day’s testimony---which spanned some of the morning and all of the afternoon---follows below.
Morning Session
A couple of weeks ago I recapped the Tsarnaev mandamus oral argument. And on Friday, the First Circuit panel that heard the arguments---composed of Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, and Judges Juan Torruella and Jeffrey Howard---released a lengthy, 2-1 split opinion denying Tsarnaev’s second bid for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the prosecution to be transferred to another district.
For roughly 60 minutes yesterday morning, a three-judge panel of the First Circuit heard arguments as to whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death penalty trial should be moved out of Boston due to concerns that he would not be able to receive a fair and impartial trial. (Yishai recently covered the legal backdrop here; briefing can be found here and here, and here.)