Mark W. Bennett | |
---|---|
Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa | |
In office June 4, 2015 –March 2, 2019 | |
Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa | |
In office December 31,1999 –December 30,2006 | |
Preceded by | Michael Joseph Melloy |
Succeeded by | Linda R. Reade |
Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa | |
In office August 26,1994 –June 4,2015 | |
Appointed by | Bill Clinton |
Preceded by | Donald E. O'Brien |
Succeeded by | Leonard T. Strand |
Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa | |
In office 1991 –August 26,1994 | |
Personal details | |
Born | Mark Warren Bennett June 4,1950 Milwaukee,Wisconsin |
Education | Gustavus Adolphus College (BA) Drake University Law School (JD) |
Mark Warren Bennett (born June 4,1950) is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa and a professor at Drake University Law School.
Born in Milwaukee,Wisconsin,Bennett grew up in the Twin Cities and received his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and urban studies from Gustavus Adolphus College in 1972 and a Juris Doctor from Drake University Law School in 1975. [1] [2]
Bennett began his own firm,Babich,Bennett,&Nickerson,now known as Babich Goldman,after law school. He was in private practice in Des Moines,Iowa from 1975 to 1991 and also served as general counsel to the Iowa Civil Liberties Union from 1975 to 1989,specializing in employment,civil rights,and constitutional litigation. [1] Bennett argued before the Supreme Court of the United States once and wrote several successful petitions for certiorari. [3] [4] He served on numerous committees for the Iowa State Bar Association and the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association. [1]
From 1991 to 1994,Bennett was a United States magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. On June 21,1994,Bennett was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa vacated by Donald E. O'Brien on recommendation from Tom Harkin. [1] Bennett was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 9,1994,and received his commission on August 26,1994. [5] As a district judge,Bennett presided over a federal death penalty trial in the 1993 Iowa murders case. [2] He served as chief judge from 1999 to 2006,and assumed senior status on June 4,2015. [5] He retired from active service on March 2,2019.
During his time as a judge,Bennett sat by designation on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,and many district courts. [3]
Bennett is an outspoken opponent of mandatory minimum sentencing. [6] Several of his decisions opposing strict applications of sentencing laws have been reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
In a 2003 case,Judge Bennett was reversed three times by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for considering post-sentencing rehabilitation when sentencing a defendant who had subsequently recovered from drug addiction and gained stable employment. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari and reversed the Eighth Circuit in 2011,adopting Judge Bennett's position. [7]
In 2007,a divided Eighth Circuit,sitting en banc ,reversed Judge Bennett after he refused to apply the 100:1 powder/crack cocaine sentencing disparity. [8] The Eighth Circuit was then reversed by the Supreme Court,which held that District Court judges could categorically reject that ratio. [9]
In 2015,when an offender faced a mandatory thirty-year consecutive sentence,Judge Bennett wished to consider the mandatory minimum when sentencing on its predicate offense,but believed that he could not under Eighth Circuit precedent. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and unanimously reversed the Eighth Circuit,holding that Judge Bennett could follow his preferred approach. [10]
Bennett is also notable for his practice of visiting defendants he sentenced in prison;by 2019,he had visited more than 400. [11]
Before Bennett's time on the bench,he taught courses at Drake University Law School,the University of Iowa College of Law,the University of South Dakota,Western Illinois University,and Des Moines Area Community College. [1]
After retiring from the federal judiciary,Bennett joined the faculty of Drake University Law School,where he is Director of the Institute for Justice Reform and Innovation. He is also a fellow of the New York University School of Law's Civil Jury Project. [3] He has taught at law schools and hundreds of continuing education seminars in 41 states and publishes frequently in the areas of civil procedure and trial advocacy. [12] [3] Bennett's scholarship,especially on implicit bias and the law,has been cited more than one thousand times. [13] Bennett is also a co-author on an employment law treatise and works as an arbitrator and mediator. [3]
Drake University Law School is the law school of Drake University,located in Des Moines,Iowa. Over 330 full-time students attend the institution. Dean Jerry Anderson is in charge of the University. Founded in 1865,Drake Law School is one of the 25 oldest law schools in the country.
Steven Michael Colloton is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit since 2003.
The University of Iowa College of Law is the law school of the University of Iowa,located in Iowa City,Iowa. It was founded in 1865.
Hill v. McDonough,547 U.S. 573 (2006),was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983,which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations,rather than under the habeas corpus provisions. Accordingly,that the prisoner had previously sought habeas relief could not bar the present challenge.
Mistretta v. United States,488 U.S. 361 (1989),is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of the United States Sentencing Commission.
Rummel v. Estelle,445 U.S. 263 (1980),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a life sentence with the possibility of parole under Texas' three strikes law for a felony fraud crime,where the offense and the defendant's two prior offenses involved approximately $230 of fraudulent activity.
Gall v. United States,552 U.S. 38 (2007),was a decision by the United States Supreme Court,which held that the federal appeals courts may not presume that a sentence falling outside the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is unreasonable. Applying this rule to the case at hand,it upheld a sentence of 36 months' probation imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ecstasy in the face of a recommended sentence of 30 to 37 months in prison.
George Gardner Fagg was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
James Edward Gritzner is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Robert W. Pratt is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Linda Rae Reade is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
Graham v. Florida,560 U.S. 48 (2010),was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses.
Brent R. Appel is an American attorney,politician and former judge who served as a justice of the Iowa Supreme Court from 2006 to 2022. Appel was previously an attorney in the office of the Attorney General of Iowa and was a candidate for a seat in the Iowa General Assembly.
Pepper v. United States,562 U.S. 476 (2011),is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether a United States District Court properly handled the sentencing of a former methamphetamine dealer. He was originally sentenced to 24 months in prison,far shorter than what federal guidelines generally specify for crimes of that nature. Prosecutors appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,which remanded the case back to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa,which affirmed the original sentence after testimony relating the defendant's rehabilitation. The case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit again,and was again remanded. A different District Court judge gave him a 65-month sentence. The defendant then brought the case back to the Eighth Circuit,which confirmed the later ruling,and to then to the Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion of the court,which ruled in favor of the defendant.
Burrage v. United States,571 U.S. 204 (2014),was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court held that a defendant cannot be liable for penalty enhancement under the penalty enhancement provision of the Controlled Substances Act unless such use is a but-for cause of the death or injury,at least when the use of a drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim's death or serious bodily injury.
Mark McCormick is a former justice of the Iowa Supreme Court who served from 1972 to 1986.
Gundy v. United States,No. 17-6086,588 U.S. ___ (2019),was a United States Supreme Court case that held that 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d),part of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"),does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. The section of the SORNA allows the Attorney General to "specify the applicability" of the mandatory registration requirements of "sex offenders convicted before the enactment of [SORNA]". Precedent is that it is only constitutional for Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch if it provides an "intelligible principle" as guidance. The outcome of the case could have greatly influenced the broad delegations of power Congress has made to the federal executive branch,but it did not.
Stokeling v. United States,586 U.S. ___ (2019),was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state robbery offenses that involve overcoming victim resistance count as "violent felonies" under the definition of that term under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984,even when only 'slight force' is required. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act,defendants with three or more violent felonies can face higher sentences when subsequently convicted of a federal firearms-related offense. This case upheld a ruling by the 11th Circuit.
Concepcion v. United States,597 U.S. ___ (2022),is a United States Supreme Court decision that concerns district courts' ability to consider changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence.
Pulsifer v. United States,,is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding 18 U.S.C. § 3553,the federal sentencing statute.