Decision Summaries

First Circuit

Beckwith v. Frey

The First Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction enjoining Maine’s Attorney General from enforcing a law that imposes a seventy-two-hour waiting period before a seller may deliver a firearm to a purchaser. In assessing the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success, the panel found the law’s commercial controls did not directly restrict the textual rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Opinion

Second Circuit

Vidal v. Venettozzi

The Second Circuit held the plaintiff prisoner was entitled to due process protections to guard his protected liberty interest in avoiding disciplinary segregation, which carried atypical and significant hardships such as severe limitations on access to law library materials and personal hygiene facilities.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v. McCuskey

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining West Virginia from imposing additional conditions on drug manufacturers that already participate in a federal discount program. Rather than serving as mere regulation, the panel found the additional state restrictions improperly sought to “reshape the contractual bargain Congress made with private manufacturers.”

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

Ryan v. United States

In a case brought by the families of several victims, the Fifth Circuit held that the Department of Justice did not violate the Crime Victims’ Rights Act when the Department entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Boeing and declined to prosecute the company for charges related to multiple deadly airplane crashes.

Opinion

Parker v. Hooper

The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the lower court’s injunctive order seeking to impose strict remedial controls over the defendant state penitentiary, which discounted the prison’s ongoing efforts to address the issues during the lengthy litigation period. The panel noted the lower court was “deliberately indifferent” to record evidence and the boundaries of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Opinion

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Farris

The Sixth Circuit ordered remedial measures, including a recommendation for disciplinary proceedings, against a criminal defendant’s appointed counsel for his improper use of generative artificial intelligence in the preparation of his pleadings. The briefs submitted to the Court included citations to genuine legal authorities that did not contain the purported quotations or propositions, which resulted in misleading legal arguments presented to the Court.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

Daugerdas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

In a case of first impression, the Seventh Circuit held that statutory law authorized the Internal Revenue Service to impose parallel civil restitution following a person’s conviction of a federal tax-related crime. The panel affirmed the $371 million civil restitution obligation on the defendant, which carried a different payment schedule than the separate $371 million obligation entered on his criminal case.

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

Get Loud Arkansas v. Jester

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction enjoining Arkansas from enforcing a state law requiring a handwritten or “wet” signature, finding the immaterial voting requirement likely violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security, which sought to safeguard the First Amendment rights of protestors, the press, and the legal observers to engage in and to report on protests in opposition to the tactics and practices attributed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. However, the panel remanded the matter to the lower court to fashion a narrower injunction focused on the parties entered in the case.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Florida

In a case that spans over a decade of litigation, the Eleventh Circuit held that the United States had the proper authority to sue Florida on behalf of hundreds of medically complex children for permanent injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the panel affirmed the lower court’s order requiring the state to provide adequate services (with the exception of a few provisions).

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

Supreme Court of the United States

Rico v. United States

The Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant’s term of supervised release when the defendant absconds.

Opinion

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent.

The Supreme Court held that a service provider can be liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the service be used for infringement, which can be shown only if the party induced or the provided service is tailored to infringement.

Opinion

Second Circuit

Leadenhall Cap. Partners LLP v. Advantage Cap. Holdings, LLC

The Second Circuit held that a district court erred by freezing a guarantor Defendants’ assets because Supreme Court precedent forbids issuing a preliminary injunction freezing assets in which no lien or equitable interest is claimed.

Opinion

Rivera-Perez v. Stover

The Second Circuit held that the First Step Act (“FSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C), does not allow earned-time credits to be used to reduce a prisoner’s term of supervised release.

Opinion

Third Circuit

McCarthy v. DEA

The Third Circuit held that an attorney’s decision to not attempt to remediate a suspected use of Artificial Intelligence on his submitted brief until after the Court ordered him to do so violated Third Circuit rules and justified imposing sanctions.

Opinion

United States v. Anderson

The Third Circuit held that the government’s use of TrueAllele to compare DNA swabs survived a Daubert challenge and clears the threshold reliability requirement for admissibility of expert evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Hodges

The Fourth Circuit discerned no error (plain or otherwise) from the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement where the district court determined “minor” in U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b) includes fictitious minors.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

Megatel Homes, L.L.C., v. City of Mansfield

The Fifth Circuit held that because the Texas Water Code does not clearly articulate and affirmatively express a state policy permitting Mansfield to act anticompetitively, Mansfield does not have state-action immunity from Megatel’s antitrust claims.

Opinion

Sixth Circuit

Smith v. SEC

The Sixth Circuit denied appellant’s petition for review because FINRA had statutory jurisdiction over him despite his refusal to register with them to trade securities.

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

Avila v. Bondi, et al

The Eighth Circuit held that the district court erred in holding that the Government could not detain an immigrant without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and in granting habeas relief on that basis.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Myers

The Ninth Circuit held that a provision of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act referring to “receives substantial resources from any source, including inheritance, settlement, or other judgment” applies to the gradual accumulation of cash deposits from family and friends in an inmate’s trust account.

Opinon

United States v. Ferrari

The Ninth Circuit held that a United States Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for trafficking firearms does not require that the person to whom the defendant transferred the firearm be an unlawful possessor or intend to unlawfully use the firearm.

Opinion

United States v. DePape

The Ninth Circuit held that when the sentencing court violates Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 by not affording a defendant the right to allocute, the sentencing court can correct the error as an “arithmetical, technical, or other clear error” under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a).

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Upside Foods Inc. v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture

The Eleventh Circuit held that the Poultry Products Inspection Act does not preempt a Florida law that bans the sale of lab grown chicken, Florida’s SB 1084.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email the editor at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Thank you for reading Appellate Happenings. This post is public so please share it.

Decision Summaries

Supreme Court of the United States

Oliver v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may bring a § 1983 action for forward-looking relief challenging a law’s constitutionality despite a prior conviction under that law because such claims do not fall within Heck v. Humphrey’s bar on collateral attacks.

Opinion

First Circuit

New York v. Trump

The First Circuit affirmed most of the preliminary injunction blocking a government-wide funding freeze but vacated the portion requiring agencies to make payments on grants and contracts, holding that such relief likely exceeds the district court’s authority under the APA.

Opinion

Abdisalam v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC

The First Circuit refused to compel arbitration of a courier’s wage claims, holding that a worker who signed the agreement only on behalf of his LLC was not personally bound by its arbitration clause, and that courts—not arbitrators—decide whether non-signatories are bound.

Opinion

Narrigan v. Goldberg

The First Circuit rejected a takings challenge to Massachusetts’s unclaimed-property statute, holding that interest claims are unripe until the owner seeks return of the property, and that a completed taking cannot support injunctive or declaratory relief.

Opinion

Second Circuit

Suarez v. Sullivan, et al.

The Second Circuit held that a jury may infer deliberate indifference from circumstantial evidence where officials were aware of a serious risk to an inmate’s mental health but failed to respond adequately.

Opinion

Russell v. Scott

The Second Circuit held that intentional sexual contact with a pretrial detainee that lacks a legitimate purpose is objectively unreasonable under the Fourteenth Amendment, applying a different standard than the Eighth Amendment test governing convicted prisoners.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Rhea Brown

The Fourth Circuit held that a bankruptcy court may decline to compel arbitration of a § 362(k) automatic-stay claim where arbitration would inherently conflict with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing that such claims are core proceedings and that arbitration would undermine centralized adjudication and enforcement of the stay.

Opinion

Bloosurf, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

The Fourth Circuit held that the Communications Act’s election-of-remedies provision bars a plaintiff from pursuing the same claim in federal court after first filing with the FCC.

Opinion

United States ex rel. Deborah Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC

The Fourth Circuit held that, under the False Claims Act’s subjective scienter standard, a defendant may act with reckless disregard by continuing to submit claims despite being aware of a substantial risk that its interpretation of the law is wrong.

Opinion

Baldwin v. DOWCP

The Fourth Circuit held that, under the Black Lung Benefits Act, a miner establishes a “year” of employment by showing 125 working days in a one-year period, rejecting any requirement of a continuous 365-day employment relationship.

Opinion

Palazzo v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC

The Fourth Circuit held that mortgage-related communications sent during bankruptcy are not “debt collection” where they are informational, include clear bankruptcy disclaimers, and do not demand payment.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Porter

The Fifth Circuit held that the use of license plate readers to obtain a vehicle’s location on public roads is not a Fourth Amendment search and that such data may be used without a warrant.

Opinion

Intuit v. FTC

The Fifth Circuit held that the Federal Trade Commission cannot adjudicate deceptive-advertising claims before an administrative law judge because such claims involve private rights that must be decided in an Article III court.

Opinion

Ford v. Mckesson

The Fifth Circuit held that a protest leader may be held liable in negligence for injuries caused by third-party violence where a jury could find he organized and led the protest in a manner that foreseeably provoked a violent confrontation Such liability, the panel reasoned, does not violate the First Amendment.

Opinion

United States v. Mendoza

The Fifth Circuit vacated several supervised-release conditions, holding that a district court must specify the duration of location monitoring and may not impose financial conditions unsupported by a restitution order or the record.

Opinion

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Golobic

The Sixth Circuit held that the obstruction-of-justice enhancement may apply to conduct occurring before a formal investigation begins.

Opinion

United States v. Hostettler

The Sixth Circuit held that defendants bringing as-applied Second Amendment challenges bear the burden of showing they are not dangerous under the court’s post-Bruen framework.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

Boyce v. Cox

The Seventh Circuit held that a prisoner’s single grievance can exhaust administrative remedies for an ongoing denial of care, rejecting the need for successive grievances where the condition continues.

Opinion

United States v. Suggs

The Seventh Circuit held that a search warrant for a single-family home remained valid despite the building containing multiple units where officers reasonably failed to discover the error and limited their search to the correct unit once inside.

Opinion

USAA Savings Bank v. Goff

The Seventh Circuit vacated an arbitration award, holding that an arbitrator exceeds her authority by disregarding an express contractual requirement.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

United States ex rel. Adventist Health Sys. of W. v. AbbVie Inc.

The Ninth Circuit held that False Claims Act claims are not barred simply because they arise from conduct governed by a statute that lacks a private right of action.

Opinion

United States v. Martinez

The Ninth Circuit held that the federal ban on firearm possession by domestic violence misdemeanants is constitutional and may be applied categorically without individualized findings of dangerousness.

Opinion

Sandler v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit held that a generic severability clause does not defeat a clear and unmistakable delegation of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Opinion

Tenth Circuit

Salcido v. City of Las Vegas

The Tenth Circuit held that officers did not violate due process by failing to intervene during an active-shooter standoff, emphasizing that inaction does not satisfy the “affirmative act” requirement of the danger-creation doctrine.

Opinion

United States v. Aguayo-Montes

The Tenth Circuit held that defense counsel must advise a defendant when a guilty plea will result in effectively certain deportation and that warning only of a possibility of removal is constitutionally inadequate.

Opinion

United States v. Williams

The Tenth Circuit held that officers may not conduct a protective sweep of a vehicle based solely on a passenger’s association with a suspected criminal, requiring individualized reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Foster v. Echols County School District

The Eleventh Circuit held that qualified immunity turns on whether an official’s conduct was clearly unlawful, not on whether the scope of personal liability under the relevant statute is clearly established.

Opinion

DC Circuit

Simmons v. Rubio

The D.C. Circuit held that a timely motion for reconsideration renders the underlying agency action nonfinal for purposes of judicial review, so the limitations period begins only when reconsideration is denied.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email the editor at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Thank you for reading Appellate Happenings. This post is public so please share it.

Share

Decision Summaries

First Circuit

Walsh v. HNTB Corporation

The First Circuit held that a performance improvement plan that does not affect the terms or conditions of employment is not an adverse employment action.

Opinion

United States v. Parlin

The First Circuit held that in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal verdict, all evidence admitted must be considered without regard to whether the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were correct. However, where evidence was improperly admitted, a defendant is entitled to a new trial unless the government proves that it is highly probable that the admission of the evidence in question did not influence the verdict.

Opinion

Second Circuit

Sufiyan v. Bondi

The Second Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to consider whether an immigrant would be eligible for asylum and statutory withholding of removal despite its conclusion that the immigrant’s material support for a terrorist organization barred removal. Otherwise, the immigrant would not be in a position to ask DOJ to waive the material support bar.

Opinion

Jin v. City of New York, et al.

The Second Circuit held that police officers were entitled to qualified immunity from a false arrest claim because they had arguable probable cause for the arrest. The Court held that, generally, (1) officers should determine probable cause on a case-by-case basis in a domestic violence incident as they would assess probable cause in other types of criminal activity and (2) the veracity of a witness should not be doubted simply because the witness providing information about a domestic dispute may have been involved in the dispute.

Opinion

Third Circuit

United States v. Concepcion

The Third Circuit held that no rational jury could conclude that an individual who transported over a kilogram of cocaine from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico intended to consume rather than distribute, the cocaine. Therefore, the lower court was not obligated to instruct the jury regarding the lesser-included Simple Possession crime.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Lowers

The Fourth Circuit held, in part, that an individual has a Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in files uploaded to a private Google Drive account, reversing the district court’s ruling that Google’s privacy policy stating it would monitor for “illegal conduct” did not vitiate the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The panel further rejected (1) the district court’s conclusion that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy because child pornography is contraband, and (2) that Google’s previous review of the files amounted to a “private search” that foreclosed any reasonable expectation. Nonetheless, the panel affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress under the attenuation doctrine.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

Barber v. Rounds

The Fifth Circuit rejected a school principal’s qualified immunity defense after he prohibited her from praying on school grounds simply because the prayer, conducted before the start of the school day, might be visible to students.

Opinion

United States, ex rel. Ferguson v. Lockheed Martin

The Fifth Circuit held that the False Claims Act’s first-to-file bar does not apply when a subsequent suit alleges a new mechanism of fraud, rather than merely adding details to the prior suit.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

B.B., a minor by and through her mother, Chelsea Boyle v. Capistrano Unified School District et al.

The Ninth Circuit, reversing a district court’s decision that an elementary school student’s Black Lives Matter drawing was not protected speech, held that elementary-aged student speech is protected by the First Amendment, and that students’ age is a relevant —but not dispositive — factor under a Tinker analysis. The panel further explained that schools can only restrict student speech when the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect student well-being.

Opinion

Tenth Circuit

Dekovic et al. v. Rubio et al.

The Tenth Circuit weighed in on a circuit dispute, holding that a minor child of a lawfully permanent resident (who is eligible for a valid petition for an immigrant visa based on that status) can obtain a visa as the minor child of a citizen once the child’s parent has become naturalized. The age of the child on the date of the parent’s naturalization refers to the statutory, rather than chronological, age.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Beazer v. Richmond County Constructors

The Eleventh Circuit held that delayed postal delivery of a complaint due to the confluence of (1) a hurricane and (2) a law firm’s untimely response to Petitioner’s inquiries entitled the Petitioner to equitable tolling. The panel reasoned that such a these circumstances amounted to extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email the editor at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Thank you for reading Appellate Happenings. This post is public so please share it.

Share

Decision Summaries

Supreme Court of the United States

Mirabelli v. Bonta

The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay of a permanent injunction. In this case, California enacted policies that prohibited schools from telling parents about their children’s gender transition unless the children consented. The Supreme Court ruled that, among other things, the parents were likely to succeed on the merits on their claim that the policy violated their Free Exercise and Due Process Rights.

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, filed a concurring opinion.

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented.

Opinion

Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that New Jersey Transit Corporation was not an “arm” of the State of New Jersey, and thus, not entitled to sovereign immunity. The court found that the Corporation was a separate legal entity that had traditional corporate powers.

Opinion

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires appellate courts to use the “substantial evidence” standard to determine whether undisputed facts constitute persecution for those seeking asylum.

Opinion

First Circuit

The City of Boston v. OptumRx, Inc.

The First Circuit held that a city had “actual knowledge” of an alleged public nuisance caused by pharmacy benefit managers’ opioid communications because the city “had ample means to discover the facts to support a claim” before the date that the statute of limitations began to run. The court therefore held that the city’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Opinion

Guallini-Indij v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico

The First Circuit held that a bankruptcy court does not automatically lose jurisdiction of adversary proceedings post-discharge. The court remanded the case and instructed the bankruptcy court to run a “case- and fact-specific inquiry” about whether its jurisdiction remained.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Okechukwu Dimkpa

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to vacate his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The panel reasoned that, even though a Supreme Court opinion came out after his conviction that interpreted the scienter provision in § 841, the appellant procedurally defaulted on that issue by not raising the underlying argument before the conviction.

Opinion

Natalie Thomas v. EOTech, LLC

The Fourth Circuit held that the statute of limitations period for filing Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims may not be shortened by prior agreement between the parties.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Luis Francisco Corona-Montano

The Fifth Circuit held that the Sentencing Guidelines do not contain a scienter requirement for transporting unaccompanied minors. The district court therefore appropriately applied a four-level enhancement to the defendant’s sentence under the guidelines, even if the defendant did not know that one of the passengers in his car was a minor.

Opinion

Sixth Circuit

Brown-Forman Corp. v. NLRB

The Sixth Circuit granted the appellant’s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings finding that the National Labor Relations Board relied on a new standard (the Cemex standard adopted during the Biden administration) that upended decades of precedent. The panel determined that the Board abused its adjudicatory authority when it promulgated that standard.

Opinion

Marquetta Williams v. City of Canton

The Sixth Circuit, in a narrow holding, affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity defense for a police officer defendant who shot and killed a man. The panel ruled that the officer may have violated clearly established law when he shot and killed a man who was firing gunshots into the air in his own backyard to celebrate New Year’s Day.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

Shareef Childs v Cheryl Webster

The Seventh Circuit held that requiring inmates to purchase their own religious items at de minimis costs does not place a substantial burden on free exercise of religion.

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Brad Wendt

The Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant police chief’s conviction under § 922(o) because he did not have fair notice that possessing a machine gun registered to his department was unlawful. The court held that the public authority exception under that statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Boylan

The Ninth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 1115, a statute concerned with accidents on ocean-going vessels, does not require the government to prove that a defendant committed “gross negligence.” Mere negligence is enough for a conviction.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Mikel Mims

The Eleventh Circuit held that a district court retains jurisdiction over restitution in a criminal case even after a defendant completes a probationary sentence. The district court had “inherent authority” to reorder the defendant to comply with a restitution order that the defendant did not previously comply with.

Opinion

United States v. Michael Shane Ragland

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded for further sentencing under the First Step Act. The court held that the Act applies to defendants who are resentenced after the Act was passed in 2018.

Opinion

Note from the Editor: At long last, Appellate Happenings is back. Thank you all for your patience as I worked on a more sustainable model for the newsletter. As you might imagine, gathering the opinions for the week is not always the easiest project to accomplish alongside casework. But with thanks to Antonia (who is also returning) and our new contributors, we have lots of exciting plans in store for you. For now though, please enjoy our first newsletter back from hiatus! ~ Ben

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email the editor at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Thank you for reading Appellate Happenings. This post is public so please share it.

Share

Decision Summaries

First Circuit

Bazinet v. Beth Israel Lahey Health, Inc.

The First Circuit reversed and vacated the lower court’s dismissal and allowed the plaintiff’s religious discrimination claim to move forward based on her claim that her sincere religious belief prohibited her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine after her employer refused to provide an accommodation.

Opinion

Perez-Perez v. Hospital Episcopal San Lucas Inc.

The First Circuit held that the application of Puerto Rico’s statutory cap on medical malpractice is a question of fact best determined by the jury when it turns on the physician’s employment status.

Opinion

Second Circuit

Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski

The Second Circuit held that the defendant police officer not entitled to qualified immunity after he detained the plaintiff during a traffic stop without probable cause. The panel agreed with the lower court that the officer lacked probable cause after the plaintiff informed the officer of his lawful possession of a firearm and the plaintiff showed the officer the requisite permit.

Opinion

Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc.

The Second Circuit vacated the lower court’s decision finding the plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claim untimely. According to the panel, the lower court improperly reasoned that the plaintiffs’ “relative sophistication” weighed on the timeliness of its discovery and filing of the claim.

Opinion

Jeffery v. City of New York

The Second Circuit held that New York City’s implementation and enforcement of a week-long curfew in light of violent ongoing protests was constitutional because the rule survives the strict scrutiny analysis triggered by the restriction on the right to travel.

Opinion

Third Circuit

Williams v. Superintendent Greene SCI

The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s grant of habeas corpus relief when the plaintiff’s trial judge twice read a non-testifying codefendant’s criminal information to the jury in violation of the Sixth Amendment, and the plaintiff’s counsel failed to intervene in violation of the plaintiff’s right to effective defense counsel.

Opinion

Fisher v. Hollingsworth

The Third Circuit held that there is no federal constitutional claim “against federal officials who fail to protect prisoners from the criminal acts of their fellow inmates.”

Opinion

Schaffner v. Monsanto Corporation

The Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania’s state-law duty to include additional warnings on pesticide labels imposes requirements that are different from those imposed under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, is preempted by that federal statute.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Yang

In a case of first impression, the Seventh Circuit held that procedural default barred a criminal defendant’s claim of competency initially raised on a collateral challenge to his conviction.

Opinion

Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc

The Seventh Circuit held that, in claims proceedings under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a court overseeing a collective action must secure personal jurisdiction over each plaintiff’s claim. The panel explained that neither the Act, nor Rule of Civil Procedure 4, furnish nationwide personal jurisdiction in such cases.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

Cox v. CoinMarketCap OpCo, LLC

The Ninth Circuit held that the Commodity Exchange Act authorizes nationwide service of process without the need to first show proper venue and that personal jurisdiction over potential defendants under the Act may be demonstrated by sufficient contacts with the forum to satisfy due process.

Opinion

Election Integrity Project California, Inc. v. Weber

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ challenge to the November 2020 election results and constitutional challenge to California’s vote-by-mail system. The panel held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly demonstrate the requisite massive disenfranchisement or complete lack of integrity necessary to state a claim under the Due Process Clause.

Opinion

NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta

The Ninth Circuit held that California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act likely facially violates the First Amendment by requiring covered businesses to “mitigate” the risk that children may be exposed to harmful or potentially harmful materials online. The panel affirmed the lower court’s preliminary injunction on only certain provisions of the Act.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Dear Readers: Our apologies for the gap in opinion coverage. Between the press of other matters and some much needed vacation for Antonia, we’ve fallen a bit behind. But we’re back up and running now and plan to keep a regular publication schedule going forward. As for some of the Supreme Court opinions we have missed in the interim, we will do our best to put together a term-in-review post in the coming weeks.

Decision Summaries

Supreme Court of the United States

Snyder v. United States

The Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that a federal bribery statute did not apply to “gratuities” rewarding public officials for past actions. The Court distinguished such cases from “bribes” which are paid before an official act in order to induce the official to act.

Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.

Opinion

Murthy v. Missouri

The Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that the plaintiffs in this case did not have standing to challenge alleged contacts between the Biden Administration and social media companies related to those companies’ COVID-19 misinformation moderation policies.

Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.

Opinion

SEC v. Jarkesy

The Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial in civil cases applies to actions brought by the SEC seeking civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud. The SEC therefore can no longer bring such actions before an Administrative Law Judge in an agency proceeding.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.

Opinion

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a bankruptcy court to, as part of a bankruptcy settlement, to discharge claims against a third-party who is not the debtor without the consent of any potential claimants. Thus, the bankruptcy court could not approve a term releasing the Sackler family from liability related to their involvement with the opioid crisis as part of Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement.

Justice Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented.

Opinion

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. Overruling Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, the Court further held that courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented.

Opinion

Fischer v. United States

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that to prosecute a January 6 rioter under a federal statute allowing criminal prosecution of anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” the government must prove that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding or attempted to do so.

Justices Barrett, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.

Opinion

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

The Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, held that enforcing laws regulating camping on public property against homeless populations does not amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.

Opinion

Third Circuit

United States v. Davis

The Third Circuit held that the government violated its promise, in a plea agreement, to recommend a sentence at the “low end” of a sentencing guidelines range. The panel explained that the government did so by emphasizing the heinous nature of the defendant’s crimes and the harm suffered by the victims, essentially suggesting that a higher sentence would be appropriate.

Opinion

United States v. D’Ambrosio

The Third Circuit held that a sentencing judge has the authority to modify an arguably unlawful condition of supervised release in response to a motion under 18 U.S.C. Section 3583(e)(2).

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC

The Fifth Circuit held that, in abruptly rescinding a 2020 rule regulating businesses that provide proxy voting advice to institutional investors, the SEC’s explanation was arbitrary and capricious. The panel therefore vacated the rule recission and remanded the matter to the agency.

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

Cole v. Group Health Plan, Inc.

The Eighth Circuit reinstated a religious discrimination claim brought by an employee alleging that her employer failed to reasonably accommodate her religious objections to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The employee claimed, in part, that the mandate subjected her to “restrictions that visibly differentiated her from vaccinated employees.”

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Hernandez

The Ninth Circuit held that, to withdraw a guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2) based on newly discovered information a defendant must show both that (1) he did not subjectively know the “new” information that is the basis for the motion and (2) that a reasonable person could not have known or anticipated it at the time of the plea.

Opinion

Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit held that 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 prohibits employers, in this case Facebook, from discriminating against U.S. Citizens in hiring, reversing a district court’s contrary ruling dismissing a former employee’s lawsuit against the company. The employee alleged that Facebook’s parent company, Meta, refused to hire him because it prefers to hire noncitizens with H1B visas that it can pay lower wages.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

U.S. Supreme Court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s statutory funding structure, which sourcing funds from the Federal Reserve System rather through than the standard annual appropriations process, is appropriate under the Appropriations Clause.

Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented.

Opinion

Smith v. Spizzirri

By unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a district court lacks discretion to dismiss a lawsuit and it must instead issue a stay when the court finds that the suit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration.

Opinion

Harrow v. Department of Defense

By unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 60-day appeal deadline for a federal employee subjected to an adverse personnel action by the Merit Systems Protection Board is not jurisdictional, and thus the appellate court may consider equitable tolling of the statutory deadline.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

Mahmoud v. McKnight

The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff parents were not entitled to a preliminary injunction to require their public-school board to provide notice and opportunity to opt out from their children’s exposure to certain books and related discussions due to the plaintiffs’ broad claims and the scant record before the panel.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

Martin v. LCMC Health Holdings

The Fifth Circuit held that a hospital does not act under the direction of the federal government when it maintains an online patient portal that utilizes tracking pixels. Thus, the panel determined that, as a rsult, the plaintiff’s state law privacy claims were not reviewable under federal question jurisdiction.

Opinion

Sixth Circuit

Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Cardona

The Sixth Circuit held that nonprofit tax-exempt organization plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Department of Education’s adjustment to relieve student loan borrowers who qualify for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, though the plaintiffs attempted to claim that they were barred from realizing “the full statutory benefit” of employing those borrowers.

Opinion

John Doe #1 v. Lee

The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and held that the Tennessee Sexual Offender Registration and Monitoring Act does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The panel further dismissed Governor Lee from the suit and modified the district court’s injunction against enforcing the registration law.

Opinion

United States v. Darden-Mosby

The Sixth Circuit held that the defendant presented sufficient evidence to establish a plausible source for $20,220 of the $112,690 in cash found during a search of his home and seized as forfeiture during his conviction for drug-dealing offenses.

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

United States v. McMillion

The Eighth Circuit held that the police did have reasonable suspicion to stop a defendant’s vehicle when he was seen with a firearm in a “high-crime area” at 4:40 a.m. Thus, the panel reversed the district court’s suppression of the illegal firearm recovered during the vehicle stop.

Opinion

United Stated v. Willis

The Eighth Circuit held that the district court improperly revoked the defendant’s right to self-representation when it based its decision on the defendant’s repeated sovereign-citizen type arguments before his trial, rather than any kind of “serious and obstructionist misconduct.”

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Lange v. Houston County, Georgia

The Eleventh Circuit held that a health insurance provider can be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for denying coverage for gender-affirming care to a transgender employee because the employee is transgender.

Opinion

In re: Baycare Medical Group, Inc., et al

The Eleventh Circuit held that a medical provider is not required to establish that documents were created and maintained for the “sole purpose” of making reports to a patient safety organization in order to be protected from discovery under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005.

Opinion

Federal Circuit

Creager Ireland v. United States

The Federal Circuit held that the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits are afforded to states, not individual citizens, and the Department of Labor is not required to provide benefits to citizens of states that have withdrawn from their agreements under the program.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Sanchez-Garcia

The Fourth Circuit held that the federal statute criminalizing the reentry of deported non-citizens does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment because it was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, joining every other circuit court to analyze the issue.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

D&T Partners v. Baymark Partners

The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff company failed to plead a pattern of criminal activity sufficient to sustain its racketeering claim against the defendant companies and individuals. The panel highlighted that the alleged fraudulent scheme only targeted limited victims in a singular transaction.

Opinion

Career Colleges v. Department of Education

The Fifth Circuit ordered the district court to grant preliminary injunction against the Department of Education’s new regulations facilitating student loan discharges. The panel held that the effects of the rule would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff career colleges by imposing significant financial costs in administrative proceedings to recoup forgiven loan amounts and that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rule is arbitrary and capricious.

Opinion

Sixth Circuit

RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC

The Sixth Circuit held that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendant when the plaintiff failed to properly present expert evidence to support its copyright infringement claim. The panel rejected the plaintiff’s argument that its due-process rights were violated because “it was the duty of the court to give adequate notice to the parties that such expert evidence would be necessary.”

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

Economic Loss Plaintiffs v. Abbott Laboratories

The Seventh Circuit held that the class of plaintiffs alleging economic loss due to the defendant manufacturer’s contamination of infant formula failed to sufficiently plead that they suffered any injury where they faced only “potential” health effects. The panel rejected the argument that plaintiffs were injured because they paid a “premium price” for the defective product, believing it had been produced in sanitary conditions.

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Winder

The Eighth Circuit held that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched a hotel room after the defendant was ejected because the proprietor then found drugs in the hotel room. The panel affirmed the district court’s finding that the later police search was lawful based on the proprietor’s consent.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Sapalasan

The Ninth Circuit held that the police may constitutionally conduct an inventory search of belongings when the property is lawfully retained and the search is done in compliance with police regulations, even after the individual has been released.

Opinion

In re: Alavi v. Genius Brands International, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff shareholders’ securities-fraud claim survived dismissal where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant children’s entertainment company fraudulently concealed its relationship with its stock promoter and exaggerated its connections to Nickelodeon Jr., Disney, Netflix, and Stan Lee.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Vargas

The Eleventh Circuit held that the thirty-five-month delay between the defendant’s indictment and arrest, due in large part to the COVID-19 global pandemic, did not rise to a “flagrant and inexcusable” deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

Second Circuit

Permanent Mission of the Republic of Seirra Leone to the UN v. Harvey

The Second Circuit held that a foreign mission to the United Nations was not immune from liability under the Foreign Soveriegn Immunities Act where faulty rennovations at the Mission’s headquarters damaged a neighbor’s home. The panel held that this conduct fell within the Act’s “commercial activities” exception because private parties can and do rennovate buildings.

Opinion

Third Circuit

Pennsylvania State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Secretary

The Third Circuit rejected a challenge to a Pennsylvania voting law which requires absentee voters to print a date on their return envelope when voting by mail. The panel explained that the “materiality provision” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits denial of the right to vote because of an “error or omission” on paperwork requisite to voiting, does not apply to rules governing how to vote, but instead only governs rules concerning voting registration (i.e., who can vote).

Opinion

Fooks v. Superintendent

The Third Circuit reversed a district court opinion denying a petition for habeas corpus, concluding that a defendant was entitled to an opportunity to show that his lawyer incorrectly assured him that he would be eligible for parole if he pleaded guilty. The panel remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the issue.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association

The Fourth Circuit held that obtaining 501(c)(3) non-profit status does not count as recieving federal financial assistance for Title IX purposes. Thus, the panel explained, that status could not serve as the basis for bringing at Title IX claim for sexual harassment.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Texas

The Fifth Circuit refused to stay a Texas law prohibiting non-citizens from illegally entering or reeintering the State and authorizing State judges to enter removal orders, concluding that it likely was not preempted by federal immigration law.

Opinion

Sixth Circuit

Schwebke v. United Wholesale Mortgage LLC

The Sixth Circuit held that, by participating in extensive discovery, a corporate defendant waived its right to compel arbitration as to an employee’s disability discrimination claim. The panel then affirmed the district court’s decision refusing to compel arbitration.

Opinion

Upshaw v. Stephenson

The Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision granting federal habeas relief to a Michigan prisoner. The panel agreed with the district court’s decision granting relief on an ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsel’s failure to investigate alibi claims and prosecutors’ use of peremptory challenges to strike Black jurors.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Osadzinski

The Seventh Circuit rejected a criminal defendant’s First Amendment challenge to his conviction for materially supporting a terrorist organization. The defendant created a computer program that allowed ISIS to rapidly duplicate propaganda videos and stay ahead of government attempts to twart ISIS’s media campaign.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

Zenoff v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit rejected an effort to revive a securities lawsuit alleging that Sorrento Therapeutics made materially false or misleading representations in a press release and Fox News article when it claimed it might have discovered a cure for COVID-19.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections

The Eleventh Circuit revived a transgender guard’s TitleII employment discrimination claim against a State prison facility. The panel rejected the district court’s conclusion that the harassment alleged in the complaint—including disobeying and undermining the guard’s authority, calling him “ma’am” on prison-wide radio communications, and calling him “baby girl”—was not severe or pervasive enough to give rise to a harassment claim.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

Supreme Court of the United States

Pulsifer v. United States

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, that a federal prisoner is eligible for “safety valve” relief under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(f) only if he does not have more than four criminal history points, does not have a prior three-point offense, and does not have a prior two-point violent offense. The panel rejected the contrary view, advanced by several federal circuits, that the statute’s use of the word “and” meant that a defendant was eligible for relief unless all three things were true.

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented.

Opinion

Lindke v. Freed

The Supreme Court unnanimously held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on his social media page engages in state action under 18 U.S.C. Section 1983 only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf and (2) purported to exercise that authority via the relevant social media posts.

Opinion

FBI v. Fikre

The Supreme Court unanimously held that a plaintiff’s claim that the government’s decision to include him on the “No Fly List” violated his constitutional rights was not moot. That is becasue, as the majority explains, the government failed to demonstrate that it would not re-list plaintiff again after removing him from the “No Fly List” in 2016.

Opinion

Wilkinson v. Garland

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that an immigration judge’s determination on the plaintiff’s application for cancellation of removal is a reviewable mixed question of law and facts. Thus, the Court explained, an appellate court must apply its own view when called upon to “assess whether an IJ correctly applied the statutory standard to a given set of facts.”

Justice Jackson concurred in the judgment.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.

Opinion

Second Circuit

United States v. Oliveras

The Second Circuit held that, when imposing a condition of supervised release subjecting a defendant to suspsicionless searches by a probation officer, the district court was required to make an individualized determination that (1) the condition is necessary in a particular case, and (2) involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary.

Opinion

Third Circuit

Pinkney v. Meadville

The Third Circuit held that a police officer violated a defendant’s clearly established rights by “fak[ing] facts to find probable cause” and “turn[ing] a shaky witness statement into a confident identification” and leaving out evidence that undermined the witness’s reliability.

Opinion

Zuch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

The Third Circuit held that the IRS was not permitted to deprive the Tax Court of jurisdiction over a challenged tax liability by taking the taxpayer’s tax refunds and applying them to that liability. The panel stated that to hold otherwise would offend the relevant statute, common law, and mootness principles.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

Deanda v. Becerra

The Fifth Circuit held that a federal law requiring clinics recieiving federal Title X grant funds to distribute contraceptives to serve adolescents does not preempt a Texas law giving parents the right to grant or refuse consent to their teenager’s decision to obtain contraception.

Opinion

Konan v. USPS

The Fifth Circuit held that the Federal Tort Claims Act postal-matter exception does not shield the USPS from liability for intentional failures to deliver mail. Thus, the panel allowed the plaintiff to bring her claim for damages against the USPS for refusing to deliver her mail for two years.

Opinion

Sixth Circuit

Savel v. MetroHealth System

The Sixth Circuit held that only two of the forty-six plaintiff employees had standing to bring claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for religious discrimination where they were the only two employees to resign after the defendant employer implemented a vaccine mandate without any religious exemptions, but before the defendant employer reneged on the policy.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Mitrovich

The Seventh Circuit held that a defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated when the government could not provide him with information on software Australian and New Zealand-based law enforcement used to identify his computer and tie it to child pornography charges. The panel explained that neither Rule 16 nor the Constitution required the government “to produce documents held exclusively by foreign authorities.”

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

Osseo Area Schools v. A.J.T.

The Eighth Circuit held the defendant school district denied the plaintiff student her free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act when it refused to accommodate her epilepsy condition by providing evening instruction.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

Smith v. Helzer

The Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to enjoin an Alaska law requiring independent political expenditure organizationa to disclose individual donors contributing more than $2,000 and include some disclosures on political advertisements themselves because the requirements not facially violate the First Amendmnet.

Opinion

Tenth Circuit

Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections

The Tenth Circuit rejected a disgruntled employee’s claims that a diversity, equity, and inclusion program violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights and created a hostile work encironment. Along the way, however, the Court noted that “race-based training programs can create hostile workplaces when official policy is combined with ongoing stereotyping and explicit or implicit expectations of discriminatory treatment.”

Opinion

United States v. Hay

The Tenth Circuit held that the constant video surveillance of a defendant’s home over several months is permitted under the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches because the video surveillance was limited to the exterior of the home. The panel rejected the contention that the potentially “limitless” nature of the surveillance made it unreasonable.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Sylvester v. Fulton County Jail

The Eleventh Circuit revived a civil suit against a police officer alleging that he violated a suspects rights by intentionally lying or recklessly misleading a judge to obtain an arrest warrant. The panel held that the warrant omitted material facts and that a jury could find that the omission was reckless or intentional.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

Supreme Court of the United States

Trump v. Anderson

The Supreme Court held that Congress, rather than the States, is responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment’s bar against federal candidates running for office after participating in an insurrection while holding an elected office. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s order to exclude former President Trump from the Republican primary ballot in the State.

Justices Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurred only in the judgment.

Opinion

Second Circuit

Williams v. Binance

The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that their purchases of the foreign defendants’ crypto-asset “tokens” are subject to domestic securities laws because the parties became bound to the transactions in the United States, and therefore irrevocable liability attached in the United States.

Opinion

United States v. Benjamin

The Second Circuit held that an explicit quid pro quo need not be expressly stated but may be inferred from the official’s and the payor’s words and actions in alleging federal funds bribery and honest services wire fraud. Thus, the panel held that the district court erred in dismissing an indictment against the defendant for these two crimes.

Opinion

Third Circuit

Wharton v. Superintendent Graterford SCI

The Third Circuit held that the district court properly imposed sanctions on prosecutors who misrepresented the work they performed to support their concession to the plaintiff’s habeas corpus petition because sanctions may be based on objectively unreasonable conduct.

Opinion

United States v. Cruz

The Third Circuit vacated and remanded a defendant’s sentence where prosecutors promised to support a certain offense level, later endorsed an extra enhancement, and then took no position on the enhancement without retracting its erroneous position.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

The Fifth Circuit vacated an injunction against a newly implemented standard in Texas requiring commercial pornographic websites to verify the age of their visitors because the measure is rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest. However, the panel affirmed the injunction against the requirement to display health warnings about the effects of the consumption of pornography as a violation of the plaintiffs’ free speech.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District

The Seventh Circuit held that parents who harbor concerns about a school district’s administrative guidance regarding students with questions about their gender identity lack standing to bring a pre-enforcement facial attack against the guidance on potential due process and free exercise grounds.

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

Noon v. Smedley

The Eighth Circuit held that the city officials were not entitle to qualified immunity against the police officers’ claims that they were terminated in violation of their First Amendment rights after they submitted grievances against the police chief. The panel stated that the plaintiffs’ rights were so clearly established at the time of the incident that a reasonably competent public official would have known terminating them for their speech was a constitutional violation.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

Peridot Tree, Inc. v. City of Sacramento

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s dormant Commerce Clause claim challenging the city’s requirement that individuals applying for permits to operate storefront marijuana dispensaries be residents. The panel held that abstention was not warranted when the only potential risk was applying constitutional protections to federally unlawful conduct.

Opinion

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Ronquillo

The Tenth Circuit held that the detached garage in which the defendant was found and searched was within the curtilage of the defendant’s home, which the police were authorized to enter pursuant to a search warrant.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Honeyfund.Com Inc v. Florida

The Eleventh Circuit held that the state law barring employers from holding mandatory meetings for their employees if those meetings endorse viewpoints that the state finds offensive (specifically, diversity and inclusions trainings) is an unconstitutional regulation of speech based on viewpoint. The panel rejected the state’s contention that the governed actions were conduct, rather than speech.

Opinion

D.C. Circuit

Doe v. Apple Inc.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims against five American technology companies for allegedly participating in “forced labor” by purchasing cobalt mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Though the plaintiffs, who represent former cobalt miners injured in mining accidents, established standing to bring their claims, the panel held that they failed to allege the companies’ “participation” where the companies purchased an unspecified amount of cobalt through the global supply chain.

Opinion

Borochov v. Iran

The D.C. Circuit held that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims against the countries of Iran and Syria. The panel explained that Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction to hear personal-injury claims arising from “extrajudicial killings” committed or materially supported by state sponsors of terrorism, but, here, the plaintiffs were injured rather than killed.

Opinion

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

Second Circuit

United States v. Johnson

The Second Circuit held that the government did not violate the Fourth Amendment when, after the defendant was convicted on another charge, it searched data collected from that information and recovered evidence related to child pornography. The panel noted that the material reviewed had been segregated from other data and identified as responsive to the search warrant in question.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

Kim v. Board of Education of Howard County

The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision rejecting a constitutional challenge to a system—involving voting by public school students with some school supervision—for electing a student member of the Howard County school board. The panel concluded that the student member is not “elected” in the constitutional sense for equal protection, One-Person-One-Vote purposes.

Opinion

Anne Arundel County v. BP P.L.C.

The Fourth Circuit, following a number of its sister circuits, held that oil companies could not remove various claims brought by state and local governments to federal court. The lawsuits in question allege that the oil companies misrepresented or concealed information about their products in violation of state tort and consumer protection laws.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

Linthicum v. Wagner

The Ninth Circuit rejected a First Amendment claim brought by Oregon state legislators who were precluded from running for re-election because of excessive absences. The panel rejected the legislators’ argument that their actions were protected speech because they were intended to deny the majority a quorum to conduct business.

Opinion

Tenth Circuit

Electric Clouds, Inc. v. FDA

The Tenth Circuit rejected a challenge brought by e-cigarette manufacturers after the FDA rejected their application for approval to sell e-liquid-containing products. The panel held that the FDA’s guidance did not mislead manufacturers into believing they would need long-term studies to support their applications and did not need to explicitly address the manufacturers’ proposed age restrictions on e-cigarette sales.

Opinion

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Brock

The D.C. Circuit held that the “obstruction of justice” enhancement in the federal sentencing guidelines does not apply to an attempt to disrupt the certification of votes for President, vacating a January 6 rioter’s sentence and remanding for resentencing. The panel rejected the rioter’s other challenges to his conviction.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

Supreme Court of the United States

Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law. The Court declined to recognize a new exception to presumptive enforceability of choice-of-law clauses for situations where enforcing the law of the State designated by the contract would contravene the public policy of the State with the greatest interest in the dispute.

Opinion

McElrath v. Georgia

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the jury’s verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, even where inconsistent with the jury’s other findings as to the defendant’s mental state, constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes. The Court reversed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s order vacating the “repugnant” not guilty verdict alongside the jury’s findings of “guilty but mentally ill” for other charged crimes.

Opinion

Third Circuit

Mohr v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

The Third Circuit held that the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which encourages healthcare providers to adopt and use health information technology, does not cause otherwise private entities to act as agents of the federal government for the purposes of federal jurisdiction.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

Doe v. Sidar

The Fourth Circuit held that the lower court erred by understating the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity in her suit against a man for sexually assaulting her. The panel rejected the district court’s holding that fairness considerations invariably cut against allowing a plaintiff to be anonymous without allowing the defendant to be anonymous.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Williams

On its sixth review of the criminal defendant’s sentence, the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to reduce his sentence. The panel held that this case required a more complete explanation of the court’s decision.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

The Ninth Circuit held that the National Labor Relations Board was not bound by its prior decision where the Ninth Circuit remanded the Board’s prior decision with the direction to supplement its original reasoning. Thus, the panel affirmed the Board’s subsequent decision, which changed its determination that the defendant engaged in unfair labor practices.

Opinion

Tenth Circuit

Hoskins v. Withers

The Tenth Circuit held that it was not clearly established law that it was retaliatory or excessive force for a police officer to point his gun at a plaintiff when the plaintiff became angry during a traffic stop. The panel further determined that the police officer’s use of force was lawful, and that there was probable cause to search the vehicle and arrest the driver upon the discovery of a large amount of cash.

Opinion

United States v. Garcia Rodriguez

The Tenth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could not find the defendant guilty of drug possession where she was the passenger of a car containing secret compartments and there was no evidence that the driver had told the defendant about the drugs contained therein or that the defendant had detected the secret compartments.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

Supreme Court of the United States

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC

The Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 need not prove that his employer took unfavorable employement action against him with retaliatory intent. Instead, he need only show that his protected activity was a “factor” in the unfavorable action.

Opinion

Department of Agricuture v. Kirtz

The Supreme Court held that a consumer can sue a federal agency for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Reform Act. The Court explained that, becuase the Act defines a “person” liable to suit to include “any” government agnency, the plaintiff could sue the Department of Agriculture for incorrectly reporting to TransUnion that the plaintiff’s account was past due.

Opinion

Third Circuit

Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers

The Third Circuit upheld a district court’s decision dismissing various constitutional and statutory claims challenging Rutgers University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The panel found that the policy was subject to only rational basis review, because it did not infringe on any fundamental right, and that the University’s policy passed muster.

Opinion

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association v. Attorney General New Jersey

The Third Circuit held that a 2004 federal statute, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, provides certain retired law enforcement officers with a federal statutory right to carry a concealed weapon. The panel further held that this law preempts a contrary New Jersey statute.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

Mohamed v. Bank of America, N.A.

The Fourth Circuit held that pandemic relief unemployment benefits funds, administered by Bank of America, were in a “government benefit account” under the terms of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. It was thus subject to that statute’s protections.

Opinion

United States v. Zelaya-Veliz

The Fourth Circuit found that the Fourth Amendment does apply to a user’s messages and data stored with Facebook, but rejected the defendants’ argument that the warrants in this case were not sufficiently particularized or supported by probable cause. That said, the panel was troubled by the lack of a time limit on at least one warrant.

Opinion

Timms v. U.S. Attorney General

The Fourth Circuit held that, after serving a prison sentence for crimes committed after being civilly committed as a sextually committed person, a defendant should be returned to civil commitment. The conviction during commitment does not terminate the commitment; nor does the government has to recertify the defendant as sexually dangerous after the new criminal sentence is complete.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

Coatney v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC

The Seventh Circuit held that, under Illinois law, Ancestry.com could not force children whose parents had signed them up for the site’s services to arbitrate their privacy claims.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

Second Circuit

In re: Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation

The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the plaintiff investors’ price-fixing claims against Mexican banks that deal in the bond market. The panel held that the district court did have personal jurisdiction over the banks when the banks used third-party brokers to indirectly sell the bonds to the plaintiffs in New York.

Opinion

Third Circuit

Falcone v. Dickstein

The Third Circuit held that there is no First Amendment right to refuse to wear a protective mask as required by valid health and safety orders put in place during a recognized public health emergency.

Opinion

United States v. Long

In an interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence offered by the Government without examining it. The panel analogized this case to the Third Circuit’s decision in United States v. Cunningham, where it held that it is an abuse of discretion to admit evidence in a criminal case without examining it.

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

Jet Midwest International Co. v. Ohadi

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of attorney’s fees in the parties’ dispute over a loan agreement. Though there was no contractual obligation under the loan agreement, nor any statutory obligation under the state law, the panel agreed with the district court that there were exceptional “special circumstances” that justify the award of attorney’s fees.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

Daramola v. Oracle America, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a whistleblower-retaliation action brought under the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts by a Canadian citizen for the conduct of a Canadian employer, even though it was a subsidiary of a U.S. parent company. The panel explained that, due to the presumption against extraterritoriality and lack of a locus of domestic conduct, the laws did not apply outside of the U.S. under the facts of this case.

Opinion

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Morales-Lopez

The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court’s finding that the federal prohibition against an unlawful drug user’s possession of a firearm was unconstitutionally vague. The panel held that the defendant had no standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of the statute because his conduct was squarely prohibited under the law, and the defendant’s as-applied challenge similarly failed where his actions clearly fell within the prohibited conduct.

Opinion

Speech First v. Shrum

The Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of an organization’s First Amendment challenges against a University where the organization sued on behalf of anonymous members. The panel stated: “longstanding and well-established doctrine in the federal courts establishes that anonymous persons may have standing to bring claims.”

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Carson v. Monsanto Co.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiff’s state law failure to warn claim was not preempted by the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Because Monsanto failed to show that it could not have complied with both state and federal requirements, the plaintiff’s claim was not even impliedly preempted.

Opinion

Baughcum v. Jackson

The Eleventh Circuit held that the Firearms Policy Coalition and its underage members do have standing to sue several probate judges over the constitutionality of a state gun law. Further, the panel held that the case was neither moot nor unripe where at least one plaintiff remains underage and the application for a license would be futile.

Opinion

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Trump

The D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed the denial of former President Trump’s motion to dismiss the Special Counsel’s Indictment accusing him of interfering with the certification of the 2020 election results. Writing per curium, the court held that the former president was not entitled to boundless presidential immunity, and that prosecution after an impeachment acquittal does not violate double jeopardy.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

Second Circuit

Park v. Kim

The Second Circuit sanctioned an attorney who cited a non-existent legal case after relying on ChatGPT to draft a reply brief. The panel held that failing to review the cited case fell below the basic obligations of counsel and referred the attorney to the bar for potential discipline.

Opinion

Rupp v. City of Buffalo

The Second Circuit reversed a district court opinion granting qualified immunity to a police officer after he arrested a citizen for shouting at him to turn his headlights on. The panel held that the record did not support the district court’s decision to enter summary judgment at this stage.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

Pak v. Biden

The Seventh Circuit held that several Iranian citizens could not challenge the Biden Administration’s refusal to grant them visas based on their compulsory service in the Revolutionary Guard. The panel explained that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability precluded review of the government’s decision.

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

Ragan v. Berkshire Hathaway Automotive, Inc.

The Eighth Circuit held that a district court was correct to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim that a car dealership violated copyright law by copying his customer intake form. The panel explained that the form was not sufficiently creative to warrant protection.

Opinion

Felts v. Green

The Eighth Circuit revived a citizen’s First Amendment lawsuit against the President of the St. Louis Board of Alderman for blocking her on Twitter. The panel explained that the President’s later decision to unblock her did not moot the lawsuit.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

Tuscon v. City of Seattle

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court decision that enjoined a city ordinance that barred writing, painting, or drawing on buildings without the owner’s permission. The panel explained that the ordinance was not overbroad and that the district court erred by not considering the numerous occasions where the ordinance would apply without burdening speech. The panel further held that the ordinance was not unduly vague.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Fylling v. Royal Carribean Cruises, Ltd.

The Eleventh Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion by failing to investigating a juror’s potential bias. The panel explained that the district court should have inquired further after becoming aware that the juror had a niece who worked for one of the parties.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

First Circuit

Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands Inc.

The First Circuit affirmed all but one of Mexico’s claims against seven U.S. gun manufacturers and one gun distributor. The panel agreed that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) generally applies to lawsuits initiated by foreign governments for harm suffered outside the United States. However, the law does not bar Mexico’s action in this case, which alleges the entities knowingly violated the law and illegally distributed firearms.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park

The Fourth Circuit held that the defendant mobile home park did not properly establish a defense against the claim that it disproportionately ousted Latinos from renting units. The panel stated that the district court misconstrued the text of the criminal statute prohibiting the concealment of undocumented immigrants, which the park was not in danger of violating. Further, the panel found that the defendant did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate its adherence to the law as a defense.

Opinion

U.S. v. King

The Fourth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requires the district court to advise defendants who intend to plead guilty about the significance of supervised release.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

After rehearing the case en banc, the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant public officials were entitled to qualified immunity when they arrested a journalist for illegally soliciting information that had not yet been officially made public with the intent to obtain a benefit. Qualified immunity was appropriate because the law did not “obviously” violate the First Amendment.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

Erdman v. City of Madison

The Seventh Circuit held that Madison’s prerequisite test of physical abilities for firefighters does not violate the Title VII prohibition against gender discrimination.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

Martinez v. High

The Ninth Circuit held that an officer is liable under the state-created danger doctrine when the officer discloses a victim’s confidential report to a violent perpetrator in a manner that increases the risk of retaliation against the victim. However, the panel further held that, because this liability theory was not clearly established at the time of the action at issue, the particular defendant in this matter was entitled to qualified immunity.

Opinion

Tenth Circuit

U.S. v. Kearn

The Tenth Circuit held that the criminal defendant was entitled to a sentence correction because his counsel provided deficient advice about the government’s plea offer, causing him to reject the offer. The panel explained that the offer would have resulted in a 14-year reduction in the ultimate sentence.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

First Circuit

Lawrence General Hospital v. Continental Casualty Company

The First Circuit held that the plaintiff hospital did present a proper claim for insurance reimbursement due to losses related to the Covid-19 pandemic under the disease contamination coverage provision of the policy. Specifically, panel determined that the government mandates issued during the pandemic were “decontamination orders,” as required by the policy.

Opinion

United States v. Arce-Ayala

The First Circuit vacated a defendant’s guilty plea based on his claim that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. The panel agreed that the defendant’s misapprehension, based on his attorney’s representations and certain statements from the district court, that he would get credit for certain time served was sufficient to make his plea unknowing.

Opinion

Third Circuit

Roberts v. Lau

The Third Circuit held that the defendant prosecutor was not entitled to absolute immunity from civil rights claims when he stepped outside of the prosecutorial role and engaged in an investigatory function by seeking out a jailhouse informant to testify against the plaintiff. However, the panel did acknowledge that the line between identifying inculpatory evidence by interviewing witnesses and engaging in an unprotected investigation is imprecise.

Opinion

Barlow v. Service Employees International Union Local 668

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims under the First Amendment protection against compelled speech. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus, which sets forth the right to be free from compelled speech in the form of union dues deductions, the plaintiffs here voluntarily entered the union and failed to revoke their dues within the allotted annual windows.

Opinion

Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police

The Third Circuit held that 18-to-20-year-olds were among the “People” protected by the Second Amendment. The panel issued an order directing the district court to issue an injunction forbidding the State from enforcing a prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms for self defense during a state of emergency.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Maynard

The Fourth Circuit held that witnesses’ use of protective face masks during trial does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him at trial.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

National Press v. McCraw

The Fifth Circuit held that the Texas statutes governing the use of drones do not violate the First Amendment right to free press. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel denied the plaintiffs’ facial constitutional challenge against the statutes for infringing on their right to film and gather news. The panel explained that the statutes only regulate the means of recording, rather than the subjects of the recording.

Opinion

Consumers’ Research v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

The Fifth Circuit rejected claims that the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s structure did not violate the Separations of Powers.

Opinion

Book People, Inc. v. Wong

The Fifth Circuit held that compelling book publishers to business with Texas public schools to issue sexual content warnings for all library materials they had ever sold likely violated the First Amendment. The panel rejected the argument that this law fell within the government-operations exception to prohibition on compelled speech.

Opinion

Sixth Circuit

United States v. O’Lear

In this health care fraud matter, the Sixth Circuit held that the nursing home residents whose identities and health records were improperly used by the defendant were “vulnerable victims” for the purposes of determining the defendant’s sentencing enhancement. Further, the panel held that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was not violated when the court excluded potential jurors based on their vaccination status, as the unvaccinated are not a “distinctive group” under the considerations of the Sixth Amendment.

Opinion

Eighth Circuit

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds

The Eighth Circuit upheld that Iowa’s trespass-surveillance statute, which penalizes anyone who, while trespassing, knowingly places or uses a device to record the trespassed property. The panel held that the trespass prerequisite made the statute sufficiently narrowly tailored enough to survive a First Amendment challenge by animal-welfare groups who admit to trespassing and recording as part of their protest and fact-gathering efforts.

Opinion

Missouri, ex rel. Eric S. Schmitt v. The Peoples Republic of China

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all but one of Missouri’s claims against the Chinese government to recover damages caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The panel determined that the district court generally lacked jurisdiction over the governmental defendants under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. However, the immunity does not protect foreign states from liability for commercial activity, and the panel allowed only one of Missouri’s claims to proceed: the allegation that China hoarded personal-protective equipment.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

South Coast Specialty Surgery Center v. Blue Cross of California

The Ninth Circuit joined the First, Second, Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that, when an assignment of benefits agreement is in place, health care providers have the authority to sue for the payment of insurance benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Opinion

Coalition on Homelessness v. San Francisco

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction against the enforcement of any ordinance that punishes sleeping, lodging, or camping on public property under the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Opinion

Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google LLC

The Ninth Circuit held that, as a matter of law, plaintiffs did not have a basis to bring their claims against Google for trespass and breach of implied contracts when Google displayed its own search result materials on the plaintiffs’ websites in the Android Search App.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Young Israel of Tampa, Inc. v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the public transit authority defendant’s policy against advertisements that “primarily promote a religious faith” violated the First Amendment because it failed to define key terms, lacked any official guidance, and vested too much discretion in those charged with its application.

Opinion

Warren v. DeSantis

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s bench trial verdict, which found that Governor Ron DiSantis did not violate the First Amendment when he terminated an elected Florida state attorney. Instead, the panel determined that the plaintiff had engaged in expression protected under the First Amendment and that the district court erred in failing to properly assess whether Governor DiSantis terminated the plaintiff for engaging in those protected expressions.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment

Decision Summaries

First Circuit

Pitta v. Medeiros

The First Circuit held that a parent did not have a First Amendment right to record a meeting with public school officials concerning his child’s special needs. The panel distinguished earlier cases finding a constitutional right to record police officers, concluding that they did not stand for the proposition that citizens have a right to record any public officer whenever they are acting in any public place.

Opinion

Fourth Circuit

Morgan v. Tincher

The Fourth Circuit held that a district erred by not granting relief from judgment under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where an officer accused of excessive force failed to update his discovery responses to disclose another, similar lawsuit had been filed against him.

Opinion

Fifth Circuit

State of Texas v. Becerra

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court decision enjoining enforcement of federal guidance that requires hospitals receiving Medicare funds to perform abortions “when that care is necessary stabilizing treatment for an emergency medical condition.” The panel concluded that the federal guidance went beyond the authority gratned by the statute in question.

Opinion

Wages & White Lion Investments, LLC v. FDA

The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the FDA acted unlawfully when it required e-cigarette manufacturers to take onerous steps to apply for FDA approval before abruptly changing its process and largely ignoring most of what they required the manufacturers to submit. The panel held that this “regulatory switcheroo” was arbitrary and capricious because, among other things, it failed to give fair notice and departed from its prior policy sub silentio and disregarded its own existing rules.

Opinion

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Johnson

The Seventh Circuit held that a district court erred in barring the goverment from presenting evidence that a weapon possessed by a felon had a laser sight as unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. The panel explained that the evidence was relevant to proving that the defendant possessed a particular gun, even if a feature of that gun suggested the weapon was particularly dangerous.

Opinion

Ninth Circuit

California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley

The Ninth Circuit held that federal law preempts a Berkley, California, regulation prohibiting builders from installing natural gas piping in new buildings. The panel held that the federal statute’s preemption provisions extend not just to regulations about natural-gas-using products but also to building codes that restrict the use of natural gas for those appliances.

Opinion

United States v. Gonzalez-Godinez

The Ninth Circuit held that a Border Patrol agent did not violate a suspect’s Miranda rights by both providing the required Miranda warnings and also warning the suspect that a post-arrest interview might bee his only chance to seek assignment. The panel explained that, while the two warnings might have presented the suspect with a difficult decision, they were not contradictory or confusing.

Opinion

Eleventh Circuit

Nelson v. Tompkins

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court decision denying qualified immunity to a jail intake officer who failed to inform other officers that a Black suspect had been arrested for committing a racially-motivated homicide. The panel held that a jury could find that this negligence amounted to a failure to protect in violation of the clearly-established constitutional rights of a white cellmate who was later killed by the suspect.

Opinion

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Alford

The D.C. Circuit rejected an appeal from a January 6 rioter who argued that there was insufficient evidence that he engaged in “disruptive orderly conduct.” The panel explained that, even if the defendnat was not violent or destructive,his unaurthorized presence in the Capitol building as part of an unruly mob was sufficiently disruptive to warrant conviction.

Opinion

Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.

If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.

Leave a comment