Epstein Secrets

sentatives have made." C • OAlmendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 237-38,118 S. Ct. 1219, 1277-28, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). To that end, the Supreme Court has cautioned that, "rewrit[ing] a law to conform it to constitutional requirements ... would constitute a serious WESTLAW @ 2020 Thomson Reuters.

on, like the change of position by the Justice Department's local U.S. Attorney's Office, came only after Epstein's victims filed this lawsuit. See Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825, 100 S. Ct. 2486, 2497, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980) (holding that an agency's "interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede

Spanish speaker) filed a lawsuit, as a class representative, to enjoin the English-only policy as discriminatory. t Id. at 279, 121 S. Ct. at [515. The P u Supreme Court held Ms. Sandoval did not have a private right of action to enforce the agency's regulations that forbid Alabama from using policies with discrimi

eading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (2012) ("A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text ...."); cf. also Mohasco Corp. v. Silver. 447 U.S. 807, 826, 100 S.Ct. 2486.65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980) (rejecting interpretation that would "giv[e] the word 'filed' two different mean

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Given that the USAO-SDFL had told the victims that the CVRA applied, it was obligated to confer with them and

omehow the "forthwith" deadline in this case had been missed, that fact would not allow it to refuse to enforce Jane Doe 1 and 2's CVRA rights now. The U.S. Supreme Court has explored a similar question of a missed deadline in connection with restitution for crime victims. Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010),

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Given that the USAO-SDFL had told the victims that the CVRA applied, it was obligated to confer with them and

omehow the "forthwith" deadline in this case had been missed, that fact would not allow it to refuse to enforce Jane Doe 1 and 2's CVRA rights now. The U.S. Supreme Court has explored a similar question of a missed deadline in connection with restitution for crime victims. Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010),