The following actually kind of makes sense in the context of the opinion… but who needs context?

It is true that foreign language documents are normally required to be accompanied by an English translation and that illegible documents are often useless. In this case, however, the fact that the relevant evidence was not translated or entirely legible did not preclude it from [the trial or appellate court's] consideration…

Nadal-Ginard v. Holder, No. 08-1550 (Feb. 25, 2009)

1st Circuit

There’s this amusing phenomenon which may be observed when those with no prior exposure to the weird social/legal/historical/political realities of the Commonwealth first innocently wander into them. I call it Mass Confusion, and it has reigned in the blawgosphere in the last couple of weeks since the First Circuit’s Friday the 13th ruling in Noonan v. Staples, Inc., No. 07-2159 (2009).

I’m just going to voice my respectful dissent on this right up front. This is all just one kid’s opinion, but whatever else this decision may be, it is not “the most dangerous libel decision in decades.” It has not “turned libel law on its head,” it is not a “bizarre twist,” it has not held that “truth is no longer an absolute defense” to libel, and it doesn’t “threaten to overturn” anything.

The boring truth is that in Noonan the First Circuit has merely glancingly condoned (as opposed to having definitively upheld) a highly questionable state law on reasonable procedural grounds. Somehow all of the critics of this opinion seem to have lost sight of the fact that the standard here was not that which would have been used had the court reviewed the case on the merits after trial, but only in terms of a motion for summary judgment: was there a “triable issue of fact” under existing Massachusetts law? Sadly, there was.

This is not to say that I agree with the outcome: At the end of the day, I’m a public-interest attorney, a progressive voter, an ACLU member, and an uncompromising defender and fan of the First Amendment. But this is an appellate, and not a First Amendment, blawg, so the following analysis is conducted accordingly.

The facts are far simpler than the law, so let’s begin at the beginning. Plaintiff Noonan was a Staples employee who engaged in some shady accounting (not a lot, but enough to get noticed) on his expense accounts and such during the course of his employment there. Staples caught Noonan, fired him, and made an example of him in a mass email sent out to all 1,500 of his former colleagues in the company’s North American division. Noonan did not seriously contend that the email as published was not true, but sued Staples anyway on the theory that it was libelous. In Noonan, the First Circuit (Tourella, J.) has agreed that it is possible that a reasonable person could have found the email to have been libel under Massachusetts law, and has remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

This, of course, is the part where every American law school graduate’s head explodes. How could a statement which is empirically true ever constitute libel? Truth is the “absolute defense” to libel, right? Yes. Yes, it is. Everywhere but the Commonwealth.

That’s right: You’re in the jungle now. Welcome to the jungle.

Let’s get to the law: Read more…

1st Circuit, massachusetts, stupid laws

One quick followup to  last month’s jeremiad on outgoing Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s last-minute decision to single-handedly invalidate any Constitutional basis for counsel in immigration removal proceedings in the awkwardly-titled decision that we’re all just calling Compean:

At the time that I wrote that, George W. Bush was still (technically, but not that anyone really noticed) President of the United States. Now that the Change-o-Meter has been set a-whirrin’, however, it looks like there is a real chance that Compean may be hitting the shredder shortly.

AILA has recently published incoming Attorney General Eric Holder’s responses to a number of written questions from Senator Orrin Hatch submitted in advance of his confirmation last week. When asked directly for his thoughts on Compean, Holder responded:

The Constitution guarantees due process of law to those who are the subjects of deportation proceeding. I understand Attorney General Mukasey’s desire to expedite immigration court proceedings, but the Constitution requires that those proceedings be fundamentally fair. For this reason, I intend to reexamine the decision should I become Attorney General.

Immigration Appeals Attorney General, immigration