Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 27)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 27)
Appellate decisions from the week of December 13-17, 2021
Happy Holidays to you and your family! Thank you all for taking the time to read and subscribe.
Decision Summaries:
Supreme Court of the United States
Dr. A v. Huchul
The Supreme Court refused to enjoin a New York regulation requiring hospital workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19, even though the regulation does not contain an exemption for sincerely held religious beliefs. The challengers alleged that being vaccinated violated their religious principles because they were tested or developed with cells descended from aborted fetal tissue.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from the denial. He argued that the regulation was not neutral towards all religions because New York’s governor, when explaining the decision not to create a religious exemption, said those who opposed the vaccine mandate were not “listening to God and what God wants.”
Justice Thomas would have granted the application, but did not say why.
Third Circuit
Jefferson v. Lias
The Third Circuit revived a plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force and Monell claims against a City of Elizabeth police officer and the city, holding that questions remained as to whether the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Jefferson had been engaged in a high-speed chase with police, ran into a fire hydrant, and then attempted to resume his flight; a police officer shot Jefferson as his car approached the officer’s cruiser.
Fifth Circuit
Cargill v. Garland
The Fifth Circuit upheld the DOJ’s so-called “Bump Stock Rule.” The panel unanimously held that guns equipped with bump stocks qualify as machineguns under federal law.
Louisiana v. Becerra
The Fifth Circuit upheld—as to 14 states—a district court’s injunction precluding the Biden administration from enforcing a rule requiring healthcare workers at facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding to be vaccinated.
Sixth Circuit
In re: MCP No. 165, OSHA Interim Final Rule
A divided panel of the Sixth Circuit upheld an OSHA rule requiring certain large employers to either (1) impose a mask mandate on their employees, or (2) deploy masking and weekly testing regimes. The majority held that OSHA had the authority to impose the mandate under 29 U.S.C. Section 655(c)(1), which allows the agency to issue emergency standards to protect workers from a “grave danger” presented by “exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards.”
Judge Larsen dissented, arguing that the rule exceeded the agency’s statutory powers.
In a separate order, the Sixth Circuit refused to hear the case en banc. Judge Sutton, joined by seven other judges, dissented from that decision.
Seventh Circuit
United States v. Cole
The Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that travel-plan questions during a traffic stop are ordinarily permissible so long as they do not unreasonably prolong the stop. In this case, the majority explained that they did not because the officer’s follow-up questions were prompted by the driver’s less-than-forthright answers.
Judges Hamilton, Rovner, and Wood dissented.
This decision reverses the holding of an earlier panel, which I covered in more detail in April in a post titled: A Pretext Too Far
In the News:
Days after the Sixth Circuit reinstated OSHA’s rule requiring large employers to deploy vaccine or COVID-19 testing mandates (see above), the Supreme Court fast-tracked a case challenging the rule. The two cases are set for oral argument on January 7.
On the same day, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on a challenge to an HHS rule requiring healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding to be vaccinated. That rule has been stayed in large parts of the country based on decisions from the Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits.
State Decisions of Interest:
The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously rejected a challenge to Governor DeWine’s Vax-a-Million lottery, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the program.
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.
