From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hiley v. Barrett

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Sep 21, 1998
155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding that a deputy sheriff who was terminated after the passage of the Lautenberg Amendment had standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g) because his termination was fairly traceable to the enactment of § 922(g)

Summary of this case from Lieberman v. MacMaster
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

No. 97-9006.

DECIDED September 21, 1998

Robert N. Wilson, Jr., Monahan Padellaro, Cambridge, MA, Curt Thompson, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mark B. Stern, Robert M. Loeb, Dept. of Justice, Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., Washington, DC, Sharon Douglas Stokes, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:97-CV-276-RCF); Richard C. Freeman, Judge.

HATCHETT, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and LENARD, District Judge.

Honorable Joan A. Lenard, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

HATCHETT, Chief Judge

This case is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned order dated July 2, 1997, and cited as 968 F. Supp. 1564 (N.D. Ga. 1997).

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Hiley v. Barrett

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Sep 21, 1998
155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998)

finding that a deputy sheriff who was terminated after the passage of the Lautenberg Amendment had standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g) because his termination was fairly traceable to the enactment of § 922(g)

Summary of this case from Lieberman v. MacMaster

adopting the reasoning of the district court in Nat'l Ass'n of Gov't Emps., Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F. Supp. 1564, 1577-78 (N.D. Ga. 1997) ("Because § 922(g) is a valid exercise of Congress' commerce authority, it cannot violate the Tenth Amendment.")

Summary of this case from United States v. Poliard

adopting the reasoning of the district court in Nat'l Ass'n of Gov't Emps.,Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F. Supp. 1564, 1577-78 (N.D. Ga. 1997) ("Because § 922(g) is a valid exercise of Congress' commerce authority, it cannot violate the Tenth Amendment.")

Summary of this case from United States v. Thrower

affirming the district court's decision upholding § 922(g)'s constitutionality against commerce clause, equal protection, substantive due process, ex post facto, bill of attainder, and Tenth Amendment attacks

Summary of this case from U.S. v. White

affirming "for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned order."

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Smith
Case details for

Hiley v. Barrett

Case Details

Full title:William S. HILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jacqueline H. BARRETT, Sheriff…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Sep 21, 1998

Citations

155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. White

Although prior to Heller we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9), our decision did not rest on Second…

U.S. v. Smith

See id. Though a pardon may not be Smith's preferred method of avoiding the consequences of his prior…

29 Citing Cases