Barber v. USDC San Francisco (9th Cir. - May 12, 2020)

Congress can let crime victims petition for a writ of mandamus, and it can also require the Court of Appeals to resolve the writ within 72 hours (!) and to do so in a "written opinion" that "clearly states" any reasons for denial of the writ.  (Section (d)(3) of the statute.)

But what Congress can't do -- or at least hasn't done -- is to make the Court of Appeals write anything more than a brief paragraph.

Which is why today's per curiam opinion states, in full:

"This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. We have carefully reviewed the district court record and the arguments of the parties, and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of restitution to which Barber is entitled. The district court's finding that the prior civil settlement reduced the amount of Barber's loss was supported by the evidence and was neither an abuse of discretion nor legally erroneous. See Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006). The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DENIED."

So there.