Page 38 - CLT083120

38 ¦ AUGUST 31, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

were not analogous because mental health civil mixtape merely because it included Jackson’s
commitments involved different public safety name. Furthermore, Roberts’ reference to
concerns than quarantines against infectious Jackson’s persona was not derogatory or an
diseases. It noted that the appellants could not invasion of Jackson’s privacy. Therefore, the
point to any case that clearly addressed the lim- substantiality of Jackson’s interest in his invo-
its imposed by due process on a State’s power cation of Connecticut’s right of publicity was
to manage infectious diseases. Therefore, the minimal and the policy considerations justify-
court held that the district court properly con- ing the doctrine of implied preemption pre-
cluded that the Commissioner of Public Health vailed. The court also held that Jackson’s right
was entitled to qualified immunity. of publicity claim sought to control the use of
a copyrighted work by prohibiting accurate
descriptions of that work, and therefore that
COPYRIGHTS claim impermissibly interfered with the federal
copyright framework and must be dismissed.
Court Affirmed the Granting of
Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, Finding Claim Preempted by CRIMINAL APPEALS
Copyright Act
Court Rejected Petitioner’s Claim That
CASE: Jackson v. Roberts His Convictions for Possession with
COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit Intent to Sell Were Not Crimes of
DOC. NO.: 19-0480 Moral Turpitude
COURT OPINION BY: Leval
DATE: August 19, 2020 • PAGES: 66
CASE: Mota v. Barr
Both parties are recognized hip-hop record- COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit
ing artists. Jackson is known as “50 Cent” DOC. NO.: 19-1385
and Roberts is known as “Rick Ross.” This COURT OPINION BY: Parker
suit arose from Robert’s use of a sample taken DATE: August 17, 2020 • PAGES: 11
from one of Jackson’s songs, “In Da Club,” in Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, pled
one of Roberts’ mix tapes that he released for guilty to two counts of felony possession of
free. Jackson sued, alleging that Roberts’ use narcotics with intent to sell. These are crimes
of his voice as well as the use of his stage name of moral turpitude and he was found remov-
in the track title identifying that song violat- able pursuant to the Immigration and Na-
ed Jackson’s right of publicity. The district tionality Act. The Board of Immigration Ap-
court granted Roberts’ motion for summary peals affirmed that these are crimes of moral
judgment and Jackson appealed. The court af- turpitude, citing previous cases stating as
firmed. The court agreed with the lower court such. Mota petitioned the court for review.
that Jackson’s claim was preempted under the The court denied Mota’s petition. The court
doctrine of implied preemption. Implied pre- upheld the determination that Mota’s crimes
emption will bar a state claim where, under the constituted crimes of moral turpitude. It
circumstances of a particular case, the chal- found that violations of that criminal statute
lenged state law impedes the accomplishment involve vile, reprehensible conduct, and that
and execution of Congress’s objectives. The drug trafficking offenses inherently involved
question before the court was whether Jack- reprehensible conduct. It employed a categor-
son’s state right of publicity claim against ical approach to its holding where it focused
Roberts asserted a sufficiently substantial on the intrinsic nature of the offense rather
state interest, distinct from the interests un- than the particular facts surrounding the peti-
derlying federal copyright law, to evade pre- tioner’s conviction. Therefore, it rejected peti-
emption. The court held that Jackson’s claim tioner’s argument that the statute’s definition
did not seek to vindicate any substantial state of “sale” could cover some conduct that did
interests distinct from those furthered by the not necessarily involve moral turpitude, such
copyright law. Roberts did not use Jackson’s as giving controlled substances to a friend at a
name or persona in a manner that falsely im- private party. In conclusion, the court denied
plied Jackson’s endorsement of Roberts, or the petition for review and upheld the Board
in a way that would induce fans to buy the of Immigration Appeals’ judgment.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune