Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 13)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 13)
Appellate decisions from the week of June 14-18, 2021
That leaves the interest of the City in the equal treatment of prospective foster parents and foster children. We do not doubt that this interest is a weighty one, for “[o]ur society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” On the facts of this case, however, this interest cannot justify denying CSS an exception for its religious exercise. The creation of a system of exceptions under the contract undermines the City’s contention that its nondiscrimination policies can brook no departures. … CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.
~Chief Justice Roberts, Fulton v. Philadelphia
Supreme Court of the United States
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
The Supreme Court unanimously (albeit in separate opinions) held that Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise clause when it refused to contract with a Catholic organization for foster care services because that organization was unwilling to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. Because the City’s policy gave it the ability to make discretionary exceptions, the Court explained, it had to grant exceptions to those who object to certain policies on religious grounds.
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, dodged the question of whether a 1990s opinion by Justice Scalia, Employment Division v. Smith, should be overruled. That case held that neutral, generally applicable laws do not violate Free Exercise, even if they have an incidental impact on religion. Smith involved a Native American man who had been fired based on a state law criminalizing drug used after he smoked peyote in a religious ceremony.
Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would have gone further and overruled Smith.
Nestle USA v. Doe
The Supreme Court held that Nestle could not be sued under the Alien Tort Statute by plaintiffs from Mali who claim they were trafficked into the Ivory Coast as child slaves to produce cocoa. Nestle did not own the cocoa farms in question, but it did buy cocoa from the Ivory Coast and provide technical and financial resources to farms there. Because the plaintiffs’ claims were based on conduct outside the United States, however, the Court held that the ATS did not reach it.
Along the way, though, the Supreme Court held that corporations can be sued under the ATS in appropriate cases, rejecting the longstanding efforts of corporations to escape liability under the statute altogether.
California v. Texas
The Supreme Court rejected (7-2) a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, holding that Texas and other states lacked standing to challenge the law based on Congress’s decision in 2017 to zero-out the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance.
Greer v. United States
In an 2019 decision, Rehaif v. United States, the Supreme Court held that to convict a defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm, the government was required to prove that the defendant knew he had an earlier felony conviction. Last week, the Supreme Court held (8-1) that, on plain error review (meaning where the defendant did not raise the issue before the trial court), a criminal defendant who claims that his conviction is invalid under Rehaif must show that he would have presented evidence at trial that he was unaware he was a felon.
Terry v. United States
The Supreme Court held that a defendant convicted of an offense involving crack cocaine is eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act only if he was convicted of a crack offense that triggered a mandatory minimum sentence.
Third Circuit
Aly v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
Under American Pipe & Construction Company v. Utah, the statute of limitations on the claims of individual class members are tolled while a class action is pending. But what happens if class members file their own, individual action, after the statute of limitations expires but before the district court reaches a decision on class certification? The Third Circuit (joining three other circuits and deepening a circuit split) held that the statute is tolled for such claims.
Fourth Circuit
Bryant v. Woodall
The Fourth Circuit held that a recent North Carolina law criminalizing pre-viability abortions was unconstitutional. It rejected the State’s argument that abortion providers lacked standing under the law because they did not face a credible threat of prosecution.
Doe v. Fairfax County School Board
The Fourth Circuit vacated a jury’s verdict in favor of the School Board in a Title IX case. In the case, a former student alleged that school administrators acted with deliberate indifference to reports that she had been sexually harassed by another student. The panel held that the school’s receipt of a report that can be objectively read to allege sexual harassment is enough to establish actual notice or knowledge under Title IX, even if the officials did not subjectively understand the report to allege sexual harassment or believe that the harassment actually occurred.
Sixth Circuit
Cassano v. Shoop
The Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a death-row inmate’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and conditionally granted the writ. It held that the Ohio courts had failed to properly address Cassano’s claim that the state trial court violated his right to represent himself by simply appointing counsel for him despite his attempt to waive counsel.
Ninth Circuit
Trout Unlimited v. Pirzadeh
In the latest of a series of rulings reversing Trump-Administration EPA decisions, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of claims against the EPA. It held that the federal courts had jurisdiction to review the EPA’s 2019 decision to rescind Obama-Administration restrictions on the ability of minors to operate in the Bristol Bay watershed in Alaska.
Tenth Circuit
Fitisemanu v. United States
The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court decision holding that citizens of American Samoa are United States citizens. It held—agreeing with the government of American Samoa—that neither the text of the Constitution nor Supreme Court precedent supported the district court’s ruling.
Doe v. University of Denver
The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for the University on Doe’s Title IX claim. The panel explained that Doe presented sufficient evidence to warrant a jury-trial on his claim that anti-male bias pervaded the sexual-misconduct investigation that led to his expulsion.
Eleventh Circuit
Thamotar v. Attorney General
The Eleventh Circuit held that, where an Immigration Judge grants an immigrant withholding of removal, the judge and Board of Immigration Appeals must reconsider a decision denying him asylum. Here, the Immigration Judge simply incorporated his earlier asylum findings (and made some minimal additional findings) when the case was remanded to him.
Points of Interest
The Iowa Supreme Court held that, under the Iowa Constitution, police need a warrant in order to seize opaque trash bags left out for collection. The majority, after conducting an extensive survey of historical sources regarding searches and seizures, reasoned that the U.S. Supreme Court’s contrary decision in California v. Greenwood was incorrect (citing Justice Gorsuch) and declined to apply it to the Iowa Constitution.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down a state law that allowed police to take blood samples from incapacitated, suspected drunk drivers. The Court held that officers must seek a warrant before conducting a blood draw.
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.
