Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 22)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 22)
Appellate decisions from the week of November 1-5, 2021
“The point is this: The doctrine of qualified immunity does not always require the plaintiff to cite binding case law involving identical facts. An official who commits a patently ‘obvious’ violation of the Constitution is not entitled to qualified immunity. That principle should have precluded dismissal of the various constitutional claims presented here. Just as it is obvious that Mary Anne Sause has a constitutional right to pray, it is likewise obvious that Priscilla Villarreal has a constitutional right to ask questions of public officials. Yet according to her complaint, Defendants arrested and sought to prosecute Villarreal for doing precisely that—asking questions of public officials. This is not just an obvious constitutional infringement—it’s hard to imagine a more textbook violation of the First Amendment.”
~ Judge James Ho, Villarreal v. City of Laredo
Decision Summaries:
Second Circuit
We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul
The Second Circuit rejected a challenge to New York State regulations requiring healthcare facilities to ensure that certain employees are vaccinated against COVID-19. The panel held that the plaintiffs—healthcare workers who wish to avoid vaccination for a number of reasons, including religious objections—had failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. The regulation was a neutral law of general applicability and, thus, did not violate the doctors’ First Amendment Rights.
Fifth Circuit
Villarreal v. City of Laredo
The Fifth Circuit held that public officials who imprisoned a reporter after she asked a police officer a question were not entitled to qualified immunity. Although Villarreal is not a traditional journalist (she posts her articles on Facebook) the Court held that it was a First Amendment violation to imprison her for seeking information about ongoing criminal matters. Though there might not have been caselaw directly on point, the violation was sufficiently obvious as to be clearly established.
Sixth Circuit
Dakota Girls, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co.
The Sixth Circuit held that childcare facilities in Ohio who were forced to shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related shutdown orders were not entitled to coverage from their business insurer. It rejected arguments for coverage relying on provisions related to (1) direct physical loss or damage, (2) business-income coverage, (3) civil-authority coverage, or (4) communicable-disease and water-borne-pathogen coverage.
Seventh Circuit
United States v. Kurzynowski
The Seventh Circuit—reaffirming a decision issued earlier this year—held that vaccination against COVID-19 precludes a federal prisoner from using the pandemic as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for release. It therefore affirmed the district court’s decision denying compassionate release under the First Step Act.
Eleventh Circuit
Belevich v. Thomas
Thomas and her mother sponsored Belevich for admission into the United States by , among other things, signing an affidavit promising to support him at 125% of the federal poverty level if he was granted a visa. Once Belevich arrived from Russia, they cut off funds, alleging that he had sexually abused Thomas’s six-year-old daughter. The Eleventh Circuit held that, under federal law, Belevich could sue to enforce the support obligation because neither the applicable statute nor regulations created an exception covering circumstances like these, however disconcerting they might be.
In The News:
As covered by SCOTUSblog, on Friday, November 5, the Supreme Court granted cert in three cases:
Egbert v. Boule: (1) Whether Bivens applies to First Amendment retaliation claims? (2) Whether Bivens extends to Fourth Amendment claims involving immigration enforcement?
United States v. Ruan/Khan: Whether a doctor with authority to prescribe controlled substances can be convicted for unlawful distribution where he reasonably (but mistakenly) believed his prescriptions fell within professional norms?
Marietta Memorial: Whether a health plan discriminates against patients with kidney disease by providing less coverage for dialysis than other treatments?
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.
