Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 15)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 15)
Appellate decisions from the week of June 28-July 2, 2021
Please forgive the late release. As you’ll see, the federal appellate courts were very busy last week.
“Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act to address a deep fault of our democracy—the historical and continuing attempt to withhold from a race of citizens their fair share of influence on the political process. For a century, African Americans had struggled and sacrificed to wrest their voting rights from a resistant Nation. The statute they and their allies at long last attained made a promise to all Americans. From then on, Congress demanded, the political process would be equally open to every citizen, regardless of race.
One does not hear much in the majority opinion about that promise. One does not hear much about what brought Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act, what Congress hoped for it to achieve, and what obstacles to that vision remain today. One would never guess that the Act is, as the President who signed it wrote, “monumental.” Johnson Papers 841. For all the opinion reveals, the majority might be considering any old piece of legislation—say, the Lanham Act or ERISA.
But then, at least, the majority should treat the Voting Rights Act as if it were ordinary legislation. The Court always says that it must interpret a statute according to its text—that it has no warrant to override congressional choices. … [Yet, here, t]he majority creates a set of extra-textual exceptions and considerations to sap the Act’s strength, and to save laws like Arizona’s. No matter what Congress wanted, the majority has other ideas.
…
The law that confronted one of this country’s most enduring wrongs; pledged to give every American, of every race, an equal chance to participate in our democracy; and now stands as the crucial tool to achieve that goal. That law, of all laws, deserves the sweep and power Congress gave it. That law, of all laws, should not be diminished by this Court. “
~Justice Kagan, Brnovich v. DNC (dissenting).
Supreme Court of the United States
Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta
The Supreme Court, splitting along party lines, held that a California disclosure law requiring charities to disclose major donors to the State’s Attorney General violated the First Amendment. Such laws, the majority held, are subject to “exacting scrutiny” that California could not satisfy in this case.
Justices Sotomayor (author), Breyer, and Kagan dissented.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
The Supreme Court, splitting along party lines, held that Arizona laws (1) invalidating ballots cast in the wrong precinct and (2) prohibiting ballot collection efforts did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Along the way, the majority announced a new and narrower test for evaluating when election laws violate the Voting Rights Act, clearing the way for State efforts to increase voting requirements.
Justices Kagan (author), Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented.
Johnson v. Chavez
The Supreme Court, splitting along party lines, held that—because their removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. Section 1231, not 8 U.S.C. Section 1226—immigrants are not entitled to a bond hearing if they, having once been deported, reenter the country without authorization and have their removal orders reinstated.
Justices Breyer (author), Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.
Lombardo v. St. Louis
In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit’s decision finding that corrections officers did not commit a constitutional violation when they placed a prisoner in a prone position and pinned him to the floor, leading to the prisoner’s death. The majority explained that the Eighth Circuit appeared to hold that use of a prone position was per se constitutional. This ran contrary to the Court’s past directive that excessive force claims must be decided based on the totality of the circumstances.
Justices Alito (author), Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
When an inventor gives his patent rights to someone else, he generally cannot later sue that person and argue that the patent rights he gave away (originally his) were invalid. But that principle has limits. The Supreme Court held here that this doctrine only applies where the inventor’s lawsuit contradicts the claims he made when he gave the patent away. Thus, if the recipient tries to broaden the scope of the patent by adding additional patent claims, the inventor can challenge the new (but not the original) claims.
Justices Barrett (author of lead dissent), Thomas, Alito (author of solo dissent), and Gorsuch dissented.
PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
The Supreme Court held that the federal government can delegate its eminent domain powers to a private company even where that company seeks to confiscate land from State governments for public use. The majority went on to say that state sovereign immunity does not bar condemnation actions brought by a private party against a State.
Justices Barrett (author of lead dissent), Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch dissented.
Peyman Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision holding that plaintiffs were required to comply with state administrative procedures before filing a lawsuit alleging a Fifth Amendment Takings Clause violation. The Court reaffirmed that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required in Takings Clause cases.
Dunn v. Reeves
The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s grant of habeas relief to an Alabama death row inmate, holding that the Circuit did not sufficiently defer to the State courts under AEDPA. In particular, the majority rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s finding that the State courts applied a per se rule requiring a state habeas petitioner making an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to call his former counsel as a witness.
Justices Sotomayor (author) and Kagan dissented.
First Circuit
Conservation Law Foundation v. Exxon Mobile
The Foundation here sued Exxon in 2016, arguing that it violated the Clean Water Act. In 2020, the district court stayed several of the Foundation’s claims under the doctrine of “primary jurisdiction,” which allows courts to (in limited circumstances) stay a case to allow a federal administrative agency time to weigh in. The First Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the stay because it was more than an ordinary postponement of litigation and that the district court erred in staying the action.
Equal Means Equal v. Ferriero
The First Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision dismissing a lawsuit against the Archivist of the United States that claimed the Equal Rights Amendment is now part of the U.S. Constitution. The panel held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to assert this claim.
Second Circuit
Hamilton v. Westchester County
The Second Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of an inmate’s Americans with Disabilities Act claims. The panel held that the district court erred in categorically excluding short-term injuries from qualifying as a disability.
Braithwaite v. Garland
Although the Immigration and Nationality Act allows an immigrant to be deported based on certain criminal convictions, the DOJ cannot seek to deport someone on that basis until the conviction has reached some degree of “finality”—i.e., until appeals have been exhausted. Holding that it was an unreasonable interpretation of the relevant statute, the Second Circuit rejected a 2018 DOJ rule that required immigrants to prove that their pending appeal of their conviction related to their guilt or innocence or a substantive (rather than procedural) defect in the criminal proceedings.
Fourth Circuit
Flores v. Garland
The Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that, in denying Flores’s asylum claim, the Board of Immigration Appeals disregarded crucial evidence, contradicted prevailing law, and failed to explain its decision. The BIA had rejected Flores’s petition despite finding Flores and his sister credible when they testified that an infamous gang leader and his minions beat Flores repeatedly and made death threats against him.
Fifth Circuit
Oliver v. Arnold
The Fifth Circuit rejected a teacher’s appeal from a district court order denying him summary judgment as to a former-student’s First Amendment claim. The student claimed that he violated her rights by attempting to force her to transcribe the Pledge of Allegiance and retaliating against her for failing to do so.
Sixth Circuit
Hughey v. Eastlick
The Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision finding that a Michigan State Trooper was entitled to qualified immunity against Hughey’s excessive force claim. Hughey claimed that the trooper yanked her arm when handcuffing her and ignored her claims about pain in her arm and the tightness of the cuffs. She alleged she suffered a torn rotator cuffs and ring marks on her wrists as a result.
Boykin v. Family Dollar Stores
The Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s order dismissing Boykin’s claim against Family Dollar and compelling arbitration. It held that, despite being self-serving, Boykin’s affidavit attesting that he did not “e-sign” the arbitration contract in question was sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact over whether a valid contract existed.
Eighth Circuit
United States v. Maupin
The Eighth Circuit rejected a defendant’s claim that his conviction for violating federal drug manufacture and distribution laws violated principles of federalism. The fact that Oregon (where the marijuana in question was grown) had legalized marijuana cultivation did not preclude Maupin’s prosecution for distributing marijuana by mail in Iowa.
Ninth Circuit
Jones v. Ryan
The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of habeas relief to an Arizona death row inmate. It held that the Arizona courts had unreasonably applied Strickland in concluding that Jones’s counsel provided effective assistance of counsel. Jones’s lawyer had failed to request a mental health expert and certain neurological or neuropsychological testing before sentencing.
Tenth Circuit
Dalton v. Reynolds
The Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court decision denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to a chief of police and other officers. The complaint alleged that the police department violated a woman’s equal protection rights by failing to adequately respond to her domestic violence complaints because her abuser was a police officer. The abuser later murdered her and then committed suicide.
Johnson v. Martin
The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision denying Johnson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that Oklahoma State courts relied on an unreasonable determination of fact and unreasonably applied Batson in rejecting his claim that the prosecutor struck jurors for racially biased reasons. The State trial court had provided its own race-neutral reasons why the prosecutor might have struck the jurors rather than asking the prosecutor.
D.C. Circuit
Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press v. FBI
The D.C. Circuit held that the FBI must turn over to reporters certain information related to the agency’s efforts to track down a student who had threatened to bomb his school. FBI agents had posed as members of the press, including by using the names of real media organizations, to catch the student.
Points of Interest
The Colorado Supreme Court held that a state law requiring juveniles convicted of multiple sex offenses to register as sex offenders for life violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This follows recent changes to State law that eliminated the mandatory reporting requirement effective September 1.
The Iowa Supreme Court upheld an Iowa law prohibiting abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, from providing sex-education instruction in public schools.
The Missouri Supreme Court held that governmental entities cannot charge public information requestors for the time attorneys spend redacting documents before releasing them to the public.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Bill Cosby’s convictions for sexual assault, finding that a former district attorney’s decision not to prosecute him was binding on later district attorneys because, as a result of that decision, Cosby was forced to testify in a later civil case without the benefit of his right to take the Fifth.
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.
