Barbara Lagoa And Ethics
Lagoa Broke Self-Imposed Ethic Rules On The Federal Judiciary
Lagoa Refused To Recuse Herself From A Florida Voting Case
Lagoa Was Part Of The Majority Ruling From The 11th Circuit That Ruled That Florida Felons Could Not Vote Unless Their Fines, Restitution And Legal Fees Had Been Paid. According to NBC News, “Lagoa took part in a controversial ruling that reversed a judge’s decision to strike down a Florida law that requires people with serious criminal convictions to pay all fines, restitution and legal fees before regaining the right to vote. Those who oppose the law, which is backed by Republicans, equate it to poll taxes imposed in the past to keep Black people from voting.” [NBC News, 9/21/20]
Lagoa Was In The Majority That Ruled That Florida Felons Could Not Vote Unless They Had Paid Their Fines And Fees. According to the American Bar Association Journal, “Lagoa was no longer on the Florida Supreme Court when it issued its advisory opinion finding that the phrase meant felons had to pay fines, fees, costs and restitution before they could vote. But she was on the 11th Circuit when it issued a Sept. 11 en banc decision that upheld the constitutionality of the fees and fines requirement. Lagoa was in the majority.” [American Bar Association Journal, 9/25/20]
Media Outlets Reported That Those Who Opposed The Law Called It A “Poll Tax”
NBC News Said That Those Who Opposed The Law Equated It To “Poll Taxes.” According to NBC News, “Lagoa took part in a controversial ruling that reversed a judge’s decision to strike down a Florida law that requires people with serious criminal convictions to pay all fines, restitution and legal fees before regaining the right to vote. Those who oppose the law, which is backed by Republicans, equate it to poll taxes imposed in the past to keep Black people from voting.” [NBC News, 9/21/20]
Lagoa Had Heard Oral Arguments For The Case While A Member Of The Florida Supreme Court
While On The Florida Supreme Court, Lagoa Heard Oral Arguments In A Case To Decide The Florida Ballot Measure To Restore Voting Rights For Felons. According to the American Bar Association Journal, “Two weeks before her confirmation, Lagoa was among the Florida Supreme Court justices who heard oral arguments in a case asking the court to decide the meaning of a Florida ballot measure on the restoration of voting rights for many Florida felons.” [American Bar Association Journal, 9/25/20]
Lagoa Previously Said She Would Recuse Herself From Cases Involving The Florida Supreme Court
Lagoa Said She Would Recuse Herself From Cases “Involving Either The Supreme Court Of Florida Or The Florida Third District Court Of Appeals While I Was A Member Of Either Court”. According to the American Bar Association Journal, “A judge must recuse herself where her impartiality ‘might reasonably be questioned,’ she wrote. If she is confirmed, Lagoa said, she would recuse herself from ‘cases in which my husband or his law firm appeared, as well as cases involving either the Supreme Court of Florida or the Florida Third District Court of Appeals while I was a member of either court.”’ [American Bar Association Journal, 9/25/20]
Lagoa Rejected Calls That She Recuse Herself From The Case
Lagoa Rejected Calls For Her To Recuse Herself From The Case. According to the American Bar Association Journal, “Lagoa and Robert Luck, another 11th Circuit judge who had been on the Florida Supreme Court, rejected calls for their recusal in a July 27 decision. They said the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges didn’t require their recusal because the state and federal cases involved different persons, different issues and different courts.” [American Bar Association Journal, 9/25/20]
May 2024: The Florida Statute Still Stood Requiring Felons To Pay All Of Their Court Fees And Fines Before They Could Vote
May 2024: Florida Felons Had To Pay All Of Their Fines, Fees, And Court Costs Before They Could Vote. According to Politico, “Florida voters approved a state constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to felons in 2018 but the Republican-controlled Legislature undercut the measure with a complex set of requirements that convicted felons first pay all fines, fees and court costs.” [Politico, 5/31/24]
Barbara Lagoa And LGBTQ Rights
Lagoa Ruled Against The LGBTQ Community In The Courtroom
August 2023: Lagoa Ruled In Favor Of Alabama’s Ban On Gender-Affirming Care For Transgender Youth
2022: Alabama Implemented A Ban Gender Affirming Care For People Under 19
2022: Alabama Made It A Felony To Prescribe Puberty Blockers Or Hormones To People Under 19. According to the Nebraska Examiner, “Alabama’s 2022 ban makes it a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a physician to prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to a person under the age of 19. The law also bans genital surgeries on minors, which medical professionals repeatedly stressed were not performed in Alabama.” [Nebraska Examiner, 8/21/23]
August 2023: Lagoa Was Part Of Judge Panel for The U.S. Court Of Appeals That Found The Law Was Constitutional
August 2023: Lagoa Was On The 11th Circuit Judge Panel That Ruled That The Law Was Constitutional. According to Chris Greidner via Law Dork, “On Monday afternoon, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Alabama’s 2022 law making ‘[p]rescribing or administering’ hormone therapy to a minor a felony is likely constitutional. In so doing, the appeals court tossed out a district court’s preliminary injunction that had been barring enforcement of the law for more than a year. Monday’s decision, then, will allow the law to take effect.” [Substack-LawDork, 8/22/23]
Lagoa Said That Transgender Plaintiffs Had Not “Presented Any Authority” That Supported The Existence Of A “Constitutional Right” To Treat Their Child’s Gender Transition. According to the Nebraska Examiner, “A federal panel Monday allowed Alabama’s ban on medical care for transgender youth to go into effect, reversing an injunction from a lower court judge issued last year. ‘The plaintiffs have not presented any authority that supports the existence of a constitutional right to ‘treat [one’s] children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards,’ said the opinion from U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. ‘Nor have they shown that (the law) classifies on the basis of sex or any other protected characteristic.’” [Nebraska Examiner, 8/21/23]
August 2023: Lagoa Ruled That Due Process And The Constitution Did Not Establish A Fundamental Right To Gender-Affirming Care
August 2023: Lagoa Said That Previous Due Process Cases Did Not “Establish A Fundamental Right To Gender Affirming Care.” According to the Nebraska Examiner, “Lagoa wrote that previous due process cases do not establish a ‘fundamental right’ to gender-affirming care.” [Nebraska Examiner, 8/21/23]
August 2023: Lagoa Wrote That Parents Did Not Have A Fundamental Right To Obtain “A Particular Medical Treatment For Their Children.” According to the Nebraska Examiner, “’Those decisions applying the fundamental parental right in the context of medical decision-making do not establish that parents have a derivative fundamental right to obtain a particular medical treatment for their children as long as a critical mass of medical professionals approve,’ the judge wrote.” [Nebraska Examiner, 8/21/23]
August 2023: Lagoa Cited Dobbs s. Jackson In Her Opinion That Ruled Against Transgender Medical Care
August 2023: Lagoa Cited Dobbs v. Jackson In Her Opinion That Concluded Abortion And Gender Affirming Care Were Not Constitutionally Protected. According to the Nebraska Examiner, “Lagoa also cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Medical Center, where Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect any right ‘not deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions.’ The attorney general’s office cited the ruling in appealing Burke’s ruling, which came before Dobbs.” [Nebraska Examiner, 8/21/23]
Lagoa Supported Conversion Therapy
November 2020: The 11th Circuit Blocked The Enforcement Of Local Ordinances That Banned Conversion Therapy On Minors. According to the Associated Press, “A federal appeals court is blocking the enforcement of local ordinances in Florida that ban therapy that seeks to change the sexual orientation of LGBTQ minors. The ruling issued Friday could put similar prohibitions at risk. The U.S. 11th District Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned a lower court decision not to grant an injunction in a lawsuit challenging ordinances established by Palm Beach County and Boca Raton that ban what’s known as conversion therapy.” [Associated Press, 11/20/20]
Lagoa Supported The Injunction To Stop The Block Of Conversion Therapy. According to the Associated Press, “The judges who supported the injunction were appointed by President Donald Trump, including Barbara Lagoa, who previously served on the Florida Supreme Court.” [Associated Press, 11/20/20]
Lagoa Ruled That The First Amendment Protected Conversion Therapy. According to Forbes, “Judges Britt C. Grant and Barbara Lagoa, who were both appointed by President Donald Trump, wrote that while they ‘understand and appreciate that the therapy is highly controversial…the First Amendment has no carveout for controversial speech.’” [Forbes, 11/20/20]
November 2020: Lagoa Claimed That Conversion Therapy Could Not Be Proved As Harmful
November 2020: Lagoa Claimed There Had Not Been Enough Research Into Conversion Therapy To Prove That It Was Harmful. According to Forbes, “The judges cast skepticism on evidence provided by the defendants showing conversion therapy is harmful enough to justify the speech restrictions, claiming there has not been enough research done on the topic to show actual evidence of the danger it poses, and saying the court ‘cannot rely’ on professional organizations that oppose the practice because organizations can ‘do an about-face’ on their views, as the American Psychiatric Association did when it reversed its opposition to homosexuality.” [Forbes, 11/20/20]
Barbara Lagoa And The “Stop WOKE” Act
Lagoa Supported DeSantis’ “Stop WOKE” Act
Lagoa Supported Desantis’ “Stop Woke” Law
Lagoa Agreed With Court Decisions That Restricted Speech In Classrooms And Provided A Path For The “Stop WOKE” Act To Be Enforced. According to Politico, “Friday’s appellate panel was seated by Judges Britt C. Grant, Barbara Lagoa and Charles R. Wilson. Grant and Lagoa — both appointees of former President Donald Trump — at times agreed with Cooper that previous court decisions upholding restrictions on speech in classrooms in different cases were rightly decided, potentially providing a path for the ‘Stop Woke’ law, which has yet to be enforced because of the federal injunction.” [Politico, 6/14/24]
The Legislation Prohibited Discussions Of Race, Color, Sex, Or National Origin In Businesses Or Schools
The Legislation Prohibited Educational Institutions And Businesses From Discussing Anything That Could Cause Them To Feel Guilty Due To Their Race. According to the Guardian, “In addition to his Stop-Woke (Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees) Act, which prohibits educational institutions and businesses from teaching students and employees anything that would cause anyone to ‘feel guilt, anguish or any form of psychological distress’ due to their race, color, sex or national origin.” [Guardian, 2/6/23]
Barbara Lagoa And Big Business
Lagoa Was Aggressively Anti-Worker On The Bench
2019: Lagoa Ruled Against Allowing Miami To Set Its Minimum Wage Higher Than The Rest Of The State
2016: Miami Leaders Voted To Approve A Higher Minimum Wage Than The State
2016: Miami Leaders Voted To Approve A Minimum Wage Higher Than The State. According to WSUF, “Miami Beach leaders voted two years ago to approve a higher minimum wage than the state. […] A circuit judge overturned the city’s ordinance, and an appeals court agreed the state’s preemption law does not allow the city to set its own minimum wage.” [WSUF, 9/17/18]
2017: A Florida Appeals Court Denied Miami Beach The Right To Make Their Own Minimum Wage
2017: A Florida Appeals Ruled That Miami Could Not Institute Their Own Minimum Wage. According to the News Service of Florida, “In a win for business groups, a South Florida appeals court Wednesday said state law prevents Miami Beach from moving forward with a local minimum wage. A panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld a circuit judge’s ruling against the city minimum wage, which was expected to take effect in 2018.” [News Service of Florida, 12/14/17]
2018: The Florida Supreme Court Was Considering A Case That Would Allow Miami To Set Their Own Minimum Wage
2018: The Florida Supreme Court Was Considering A Case That Would Determine If Miami Was Allowed To Set Their Own Minimum Wage. According to WUSF, “Last year, the high court agreed to consider whether the city should be allowed to set its own minimum wage. Now, with three new justices on the bench, the court has decided not to hear the case. That means the lower court ruling against the city stands.” [WUSF, 2/5/19]
2019: Lagoa And The Newly Appointed Justices To The Florida Supreme Court Refused To Consider The Case
2019: The Florida Supreme Court Refused To Consider An Appeal In A Miami Beach Minimum Wage Lawsuit. According to the Miami Herald, “In the first major demonstration of an ideological shift on the revamped Florida Supreme Court, justices Tuesday refused to consider an appeal in a Miami Beach minimum-wage lawsuit that a former liberal-leaning majority of the court had scheduled to hear next month.” [Miami Herald, 2/5/19]
Lagoa Sided With The Businesses Challenging The Increased Minimum Wage. According to Reuters, “While on the Florida Supreme Court in 2019, Lagoa sided with business groups challenging a decision by the city of Miami Beach to raise its minimum wage.” [Reuters, 9/21/20]
February 2017: Lagoa Ruled Uber Drivers Were Independent Contractors And Not Eligible For Unemployment
February 2017: The Florida Appeals Court Upheld A Decision By Governor Rick Scott That Uber Drivers Were Independent Contractors And Not Eligible For Unemployment. According to the News Service of Florida, “Siding with the San Francisco-based technology giant, a Florida appeals court upheld a decision by Gov. Rick Scott’s administration that Uber drivers are independent contractors — not employees — and therefore not eligible for unemployment benefits. [News Service of Florida, 2/2/17]
Lagoa Was Part Of The Majority That Ruled In Uber’s Favor. According to the News Service of Florida, “Uber, which hooks up drivers and riders through a smart-phone app, requires drivers to sign a contract outlining the terms and conditions of its software platform and informing drivers that they serve as independent contractors, not employees, Judge Thomas Logue wrote in a 14-page opinion joined by judges Barbara Lagoa and Vance Salter.” [News Service of Florida, 2/2/17]
July 2016: Lagoa Ruled Against Workers receiving Damages In Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. V. Amaya
July 2016: Caterpillar Logistics Appealed A Claim That They Retaliated Against A Worker For Filing A Workers Compensation Claim. According to Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. V. Amaya via Justia, “Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. (‘Caterpillar’), appeals a final judgment entered in favor of Rudolf Amaya following a jury’s verdict awarding Amaya back pay and front pay on his claim that Caterpillar unlawfully retaliated against him for filing a workers’ compensation claim in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2008) (‘retaliation claim’). Because the record demonstrates that Amaya was not physically able to work prior to and after Caterpillar’s alleged retaliation, and as such, Caterpillar’s retaliation did not cause Amaya any economic damages, we reverse the final judgment and remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of Caterpillar.” [Justia, Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. V. Amaya, Accessed 6/24/24]
Amaya Was Initially Awarded Over $570,000 From Caterpillar Logistics
A Final Judgment Was Originally Awarded In Favor Of Amaya In The Amount Of $571,883.64. According to Caterpillar Logistic Services, Inc. V Amaya and the Florida Third District Court of Appeals via Google Scholar, “Caterpillar filed several post-trial motions, including a motion for judgment in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict (‘JNOV motion’) on Amaya’s retaliation claim and a motion for setoff. The trial court denied Caterpillar’s JNOV motion as to the retaliation claim but granted the motion for setoff by reducing the back pay award by all amounts Amaya received from his workers’ compensation carrier. Thereafter, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Amaya and against Caterpillar in the amount of $571,883.64. Caterpillar’s appeal followed.” [Caterpillar Logistics Services v. Amaya, 201 so. 3d 173 via Google Scholar, Accessed 6/24/24]
July 2016: Lagoa And The Panel Ruled In Caterpillar’s Favor And Reversed Amaya’s Financial Judgment
July 2016: Lagoa Was Part Of The Majority That Ruled In Favor Of Caterpillar And Removed Amaya’s Monetary Compensation. According to Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. V. Amaya via Justia, “Because Amaya was unable to demonstrate that Caterpillar’s retaliation was the ‘but for’ cause of either his lost wages before trial or in the future, we are compelled to reverse the final judgment as Amaya is not entitled to an award of back pay or front pay as a matter of law. Based on our disposition of the above issue, we do not address the remaining issues raised by Caterpillar, and we reverse the final judgment taxing costs against Caterpillar. Reversed and remanded for entry of final judgment in Caterpillar’s favor.” [Justia, Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. V. Amaya, Accessed 6/24/24]
December 2017: Lagoa Reversed Damages Awarded To An Employee Who Was Fired After Reporting Racist Comments From Their Supervisor
December 2017: Jackson Asserted He Was Fired By Kleen 1 After He Reported His Bosses Racist Behavior. According to Jackson V. Kleen 1, Llc via Justia, “Jackson was employed by Kleen 1 for less than one week. A few days into his employment, Jackson alleges that his supervisor made several discriminatory racial comments toward him,and when Jackson later reported this behavior to Kleen 1’s vice president, he was fired. Jackson also contends that while working for Kleen 1, he was given a disproportionate amount of duties compared to other non-black or non-Jamaican employees.” [Jackson V. Kleen 1, Llc via Justia, 12/20/17]
Jackson Was Initially Awarded $8,500 In Damages
Jackson Was Initially Awarded $8,500 In Damages From Kleen 1 For Emotional Pain And Anguish. According to Jackson V. Kleen 1, Llc via Justia, “At the close of Jackson’s case, Kleen 1 moved for a directed verdict, asserting Jackson had failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. The court reserved ruling on the motion. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict, finding in favor of Kleen 1 on the racial and national origin discrimination claims (Counts I and II), but found in favor of Jackson on his retaliatory discharge claim (Count III). The jury awarded no damages to Jackson for lost wages, but awarded him $8,500 for emotional pain and mental anguish.” [Jackson V. Kleen 1, Llc via Justia, 12/20/17]
Lagoa Was Part Of A Decision To Overturn Jackson’s Compensation Award
The Decision To Award Damages To Jackson Was Overturned. According to Jackson V. Kleen 1, Llc via Justia, “Accordingly, we reverse in part the trial court’s order granting motion for directed verdict, and final judgment entered thereon, with directions to enter an amended final judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict on Count III— that Although Jackson did assert that he lost wages as a result of the retaliatory discharge, the jury awarded no damages to Jackson in that regard. Jackson proved that he engaged in protected activity and that Kleen 1 terminated Jackson’s employment because of his protected activity. We affirm the trial court’s order granting motion for directed verdict, and final judgment, insofar as it determined that the evidence at trial failed to support the jury’s award of damages. [Jackson V. Kleen 1, Llc via Justia, 12/20/17]
Lagoa Was One Of The Judges That Heard The Appeal. According to Jackson V. Kleen 1, Llc via Justia, The Judges that overheard the appeal were: Rothenberg, Lagoa, and Emas. [Jackson V. Kleen 1, Llc via Justia, 12/20/17]
Lagoa Reversed A Ruling That Allowed Floridians To Recover Fees Charged To Them By Banks Who Improperly Tried To Foreclose On Their Homes
January 2019: The Florida Supreme Court Ruled In Favor Of Homeowners Attempting To Recover Fees From Banks For Improper Foreclosures
January 2019: The Florida Supreme Court Issued A Decision That Made It Easier For Homeowners To Recover Legal From Banks That Tried To Improperly Foreclose On Their Homes. According to Reuters, “In January 2019, right before Lagoa joined the Florida Supreme Court, the court issued a decision that made it easier for homeowners to recover legal fees from banks that improperly tried to foreclose on their homes.” [Reuters, 9/21/20]
March 2020: The Newly Appointed Lagoa Joined Her Colleagues In Reversing The Decision
March 2020: The Newly Installed Lagoa And Her Colleagues Reversed The Decision And Said The Court Never Had The Jurisdiction To Hear The Case. According to Reuters, “In a highly unusual turn of events, the court withdrew that decision three months later, after Lagoa and two other DeSantis-picked judges were installed. Lagoa joined colleagues in saying the court never had jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place.” [Reuters, 9/21/20]
Lagoa Sided With An Insurance Company’s Refusal To Pay Medical Damages Because The Injured Did Not List His Brother As A Member Of His Household
United Insurance Cancelled Oscar Salgado’s Insurance For Not Listing His Brother As A Member Of His Household On His Application After Medical Expenses Were Incurred From An Auto Accident
United Insurance Refused To Reimburse Salgado For His Medical Expenses From The Car Accident Because He Did Not List His Brother As A Member Of His Household When He Applied For Insurance. According to United Automobile Insurance Company, v. Oscar Salgado via Google Scholar, During the policy’s effective period, Salgado was injured in a car accident. After receiving treatment, Salgado submitted his medical expenses to United for reimbursement. After conducting an investigation, United determined that Salgado had failed to list his brother as a member of his household on his insurance application, and notified Salgado that, as a result of this material misrepresentation, his policy was cancelled as of its effective date.” [United Automobile Insurance Company, v. Oscar Salgado via Google Scholar, No. 3D07-461, 8/5/09]
Salgado’s Case Was Heard By The Florida Trial Court And They Ruled In His Favor
The Trial Court Ruled In Salgado’s Favor That He Was Indeed Covered By United Insurance At The Time Of The Accident. According to United Automobile Insurance Company, v. Oscar Salgado via Google Scholar, “The trial court further reasoned that, because section 627.736(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), mandated United to report cancellation or nonrenewal of PIP coverage to the Department of Highway Safety Motor Vehicles within forty-five days from the effective date of cancellation or non-renewal, United did not comply with the statute when it cancelled Salgado’s policy retroactively to the date of inception. […] The trial court, therefore, found that Salgado’s policy was valid at the time of the accident on January 31, 2004.” [United Automobile Insurance Company, v. Oscar Salgado via Google Scholar, No. 3D07-461, 8/5/09]
United Insurance Appealed And Won Judgment From The Federal Appeals Court That Lagoa Was On
Lagoa Was Part Of The Majority That Ruled In Favor Of United Insurance And Allowed Them To Retroactively Cancel Salgado’s Insurance. According to United Automobile Insurance Company, v. Oscar Salgado via Google Scholar, “In concluding that United’s only remedy was to cancel the policy prospectively under section 627.728, the trial court and the circuit court appellate division in its affirmance departed from the essential requirements of the law. […] Accordingly, we grant the writ, quash the opinion of the circuit court appellate division affirming the final declaratory decree entered in Salgado’s favor, and remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of United.” [United Automobile Insurance Company, v. Oscar Salgado via Google Scholar, No. 3D07-461, 8/5/09]
Barbara Lagoa And Crime
Lagoa Repeatedly Reversed Convictions For Heinous Crimes
Lagoa Authored An Opinion That For Overturned The Conviction Of A Child Pornographer
Lagoa Authored An Opinion That Overturned A Conviction Of A Child Pornographer, Adonis Losada, Because The Court Did Not Let Him Defend Himself. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “At the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, she wrote an opinion reversing the conviction of Adonis Losada, a former Univision comic actor sentenced to 153 years in prison for collecting child porn. Lagoa ruled that a Miami-Dade judge erred in not allowing Losada to defend himself at trial.” [Tampa Bay Times, 9/19/20]
- Losada Was Originally Sentenced To 153 Years In Prison. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “Adonis Losada, a former Univision comic actor sentenced to 153 years in prison for collecting child porn. Lagoa ruled that a Miami-Dade judge erred in not allowing Losada to defend himself at trial.” [Tampa Bay Times, 9/19/20]
Lagoa’s Argued That Losada Was Denied His Right To Defend Himself Helped Grant Him A New Trial
Lagoa Argued Losada Was Denied His Right To Defend Himself, Helping Grant Him A New Trial. According to the Daily Mail, “Lagoa agreed that Losada was denied his legal right to defend himself after the trial judge couldn’t make sense of his replies and instead appointed a public defender. The warped comic spent ten years in prison in Palm Beach County for related offenses but was released in April ahead of a retrial in Miami.” [Daily Mail, 9/25/20]
Losada Received A New Trial And Faced 57 Years In Prison Instead Of His Original Sentence Of 153 Years
Losada’s Conviction Was Overturned. According to the Miami Herald, “At his first trial in 2016, Losada took the stand and claimed someone else who lived in his Miami Beach apartment must have downloaded the porn. Jurors didn’t believe him — and he was ultimately sentenced to 153 years in prison. But in 2019, the Third District Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, saying the trial judge erred in not allowing Losada to represent himself.” [Miami Herald, 3/11/22]
Losada Was Resentenced To Over 50 Years In Jail. According to the Miami Herald, “Losada, 57, who was a staple on the long-running Univision variety show, was convicted late Thursday of 51 counts of possessing child-porn images. On Friday, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Teresa Pooler sentenced him to 57 years in prison.” [Miami Herald, 3/11/22]
Lagoa Ordered The Retrial For A Convicted Murderer
Lagoa Ordered The Retrial For A Convicted Murderer After A Stenographer Accidentally Erased The Trial Transcripts. According to the Daily Mail, “She also ordered a retrial for Randy Chaviano, convicted of shooting Carlos Acosta dead in 2005, after a court stenographer accidentally erased transcripts from his trial. [Daily Mail, 9/25/20]
The Defendant Pleaded Guilty To Second Degree Murder And Received 25 Years In Jail
The Defendant Pleaded Guilty To Second Degree Murder And Received 25 Years In Jail. According to the Daily Mail, Chaviano eventually pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was jailed for 25 years. [Daily Mail, 9/25/20]
Barbara Lagoa And Immigration
Lagoa Ruled Against Immigrants In Federal Court
Lagoa Was Part Of The Majority That Ruled Against The Federal Court’s Ability To Review Decisions By Immigration Officials
The Court Accused Patel Of Intentionally Committing Fraud On His Georgia Driver’s License Application By Marking Himself As An American Citizen And Denied His Petition To Stay In The U.S.
The Board Of Immigration Appeals Denied Patel’s Petition To Change His Immigration Status To Stay In The Country. According to a blog on People for the American Way by Paul Gordon, “An immigration judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Indian citizen Pankajkumar Patel’s petition to change his immigration status so that he could remain in the country based on a labor certification.” [People for the American Way-Blog Post-Paul Gordon, 9/18/20]
Immigration Officials Accused Patel Of Intentionally Marking Himself As An American Citizen For A Driver’s License Application And Thus Declared Him Ineligible To Receive Benefits. According to a blog on People for the American Way by Paul Gordon, “In Patel’s case, officials concluded he was ineligible for relief because when he had applied for a Georgia driver’s license, Patel had incorrectly checked a box that said he was a U.S. citizen. He testified that it had been a mistake, but immigration officials concluded it was intentional and that this made him inadmissible. Patel appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the record did not support the officials’ factual conclusion.” [People for the American Way-Blog Post-Paul Gordon, 9/18/20]
Patel Disputed The Finding And Argued It Was Unintentional
Patel Disputed The Finding And Argued It Was Unintentional. According to a blog on People for the American Way by Paul Gordon, “In Patel’s case, officials concluded he was ineligible for relief because when he had applied for a Georgia driver’s license, Patel had incorrectly checked a box that said he was a U.S. citizen. He testified that it had been a mistake, but immigration officials concluded it was intentional and that this made him inadmissible. Patel appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the record did not support the officials’ factual conclusion.” [People for the American Way-Blog Post-Paul Gordon, 9/18/20]
Lagoa Was Part Of The Majority That Ruled Patel Could Not Further Appeal To The Courts
Lagoa Was Part Of The Majority That Ruled Patel Could Not Appeal To The Courts. According to a blog on People for the American Way by Paul Gordon, “In an en banc decision joined by all five participating Trump judges—Kevin Newsom, Elizabeth Branch, Britt Grant, Robert Luck, and Barbara Lagoa—a majority of the Eleventh Circuit held that Patel cannot appeal that issue to the courts.” [People for the American Way-Blog Post-Paul Gordon, 9/18/20]
Lagoa And The Majority’s Ruling Set Precedent That Curtailed The Court’s Ability To Review Decisions Of Immigrant Officials
Lagoa And The Majority’s Ruling Set A Precedent That Curtailed The Court’s Ability To Review Decisions Of Immigrant Officials. According to a blog on People for the American Way by Paul Gordon, “With five Trump judges making a 9-5 majority decision possible, the Eleventh Circuit released an en banc ruling significantly curtailing courts’ ability to review the decisions of immigration officials.” [People for the American Way-Blog Post-Paul Gordon, 9/18/20]
May 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court Upheld The Ruling
May 2022: The Supreme Court Ruled In The Appeals Court Favor And Curtailed The Federal Court’s Ability To Review Immigration Official’s Decisions. According to Justice Barrett’s Majority opinion for the Supreme Court, “Federal courts have a very limited role to play in this process. With an exception for legal and constitutional questions, Congress has barred judicial review of the Attorney General’s decisions denying discretionary relief from removal. We must decide how far this bar extends—specifically, whether it precludes judicial review of factual findings that underlie a denial of relief. It does.” [Patel et al. V. Garland, Attorney General, No. 20–979, 5/16/22]