Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 12)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 12)
Appellate decisions from the week of June 7-11, 2021
“Among the several requirements for the rule of law is that the law be reasonably certain. Certainty in the law is what allows citizens to plan their actions knowing that neither the state nor other individuals will interfere with them. That same certainty is what constrains government officials to exercise their coercive powers according to rules—rather than according to their own will, which is what the Founding generation called arbitrary action, or a “government . . . of men.” And when those rules take statutory form, the courts must apply them, regardless of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case. Otherwise all statutory law becomes discretionary, and the law itself is rendered uncertain. “ ~Judge Kethledge, Smith v. U.S. Bank N.A.
Supreme Court of the United States
Sanchez v. Mayorkas
Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States unlawfully but was allowed to remain in the country temporarily because El Salvador had been designated as a country with unusually bad or dangerous conditions. But his application for permanent residence was later denied because of his unlawful entry. The Supreme Court unanimously held that Sanchez’s temporary protected status did not excuse his earlier unlawful entry, so he was not eligible for permanent residence status.
Borden v. United States
A plurality of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justice Gorsuch and the three more liberal justices, held that a criminal offense that requires only reckless conduct does not qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Justice Thomas concurred in that conclusion, but wrote separately to reiterate his disagreement with the Court’s earlier decision striking down the residual clause of the ACCA.
Second Circuit
Beierwaltes v. L’Office Federale De La Culture De Law Confederation Suisse
Plaintiff sued the Swiss government after it seized more than a thousand pieces of ancient art they owned in connection with an investigation of illegal trafficking in cultural property. The plaintiffs claimed that the seizure was arbitrary and made without probable cause, and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s “expropriation exception” allowed their lawsuit. The Second Circuit held that the “expropriation exception” (which typically applies where countries nationalize private property) did not apply because (1) routine law enforcement seizures are not generally a “taking,” (2) the seizure did not violate international law, and (3) the seizure fell within Switzerland’s traditional police powers.
Bey v. City of New York
The Second Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment to four firefighters who sued the City under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The firefighters suffered from a skin condition that causes pain and sometimes scarring when they shave their facial hair, but the fire department required its firefighters to be clean shaven in the areas where an oxygen mask or respirator seals against the skin. The Second Circuit held that the firefighters had no ADA claim because an OSHA regulation unambiguously prohibits the fire department from granting the plaintiffs an exception to that policy.
Garlick v. Lee
The Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, holding that the New York state courts had unreasonably applied clearly established federal law. The state trial court had admitted an autopsy report into evidence through a witness who had not participated in the autopsy or the preparation of the report. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that the report was “testimonial,” even though it did not directly link Garlick to the crime. Thus, admitting the report though a witness who was not involved in creating it violated the Confrontation Clause.
Fourth Circuit
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Berger
The en banc Fourth Circuit held that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to allow leaders from the North Carolina House and Senate to intervene in litigation challenging the state’s voter-ID law. Because the Attorney General was defending the validity of the law, there was no need to allow “two representatives of the State’s interest” in the case.
Yawn v. Dorchester County
The Fourth Circuit held that Dorchester County, South Carolina, did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause when it sprayed pesticides to kill mosquitos. The plaintiffs had argued otherwise because the pesticide also killed their bees.
Sixth Circuit
In Re: Ronald J. Smith
The Sixth Circuit held that a bankruptcy court must dismiss a bankruptcy case under Chapter 13 if the debtor moves to dismiss, even if he did so in bad faith. Here, Ronald Smith repeatedly filed for bankruptcy to forestall foreclosure on his home, triggering an automatic stay of a scheduled foreclosure sale, then moved to dismiss once the foreclosure sale date had passed.
Ninth Circuit
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Klickitat County
The Ninth Circuit held that county officials in Washington could not prosecute a member of the Yakama Tribe for alleged criminal conduct on a piece of land in Washington State known as Tract D. Under an 1855 treaty between the Tribe and the United States, Tract D is part of the Yakama Reservation and, as a result, only the Tribe or the federal government can prosecute tribe members for offenses that occur on the Tract.
Points of Interest
The Florida Supreme Court struck down a policy adopted by the Business Law Section of the Florida Bar which would have required a minimum number of diverse faculty members at Section-sponsored continuing legal education events. It held that the policy amounted to a quota and, thus, amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.
The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Board of Canvassers has no power to investigate the validity of petition signatures before sending a petition to the Legislature; it can only determine if the petition has the right number of signatures. The case involves an effort to repeal a law allowing the Governor to shut down businesses in response to health threats like COVID-19.
The North Carolina Supreme Court unanimously held that the state’s constitutional guarantee of an "opportunity to receive a sound basic education” includes the right not to be bullied in school. Thus, parents and students can sue education officials if they fail to intervene to stop bullying.
The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a state law requiring convicted sex offenders to register for life with no opportunity to be removed from the list. The justices explained that the lack of any ability to seek judicial review of the registration requirement violated due process.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held (4-3 along party lines) that local health officials do not have the authority to close school buildings to curb the spread of diseases like COVID-19. The opinion does not preclude state authorities from closing schools.
Any opinions expressed here are my 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 me at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.
