Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 32)
Appellate decisions from the weeks of February 14-25, 2022.
“The fight is here; I need ammo, not a ride.” ~Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, in response to U.S. offer of asylum.
“There is no purgatory for war criminals. They go straight to hell, ambassador.” ~Sergiy Kyslytsya, Ukrainian Ambassador to the UN, speaking to the Russian Ambassador1
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.
The Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that either (1) a mistake of fact or (2) a mistake of law can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration. In this case, “the alleged inaccuracy stemmed from Unicolors having filed a single application seeking registration for 31 separate works despite a Copyright Office regulation that provides that a single application may cover multiple works only if they were ‘included in the same unit of publication.’”
Justice Thomas dissented, joined in full by Justice Alito and, in part, by Justice Gorsuch.
Fourth Circuit
Lyons v. PNC Bank
The Fourth Circuit held that the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits consumer agreements related to mortgage loans form requiring the consumer to arbitrate claims against their lender.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Wilson
The Fourth Circuit enjoined South Carolina’s fetal heartbeat bill as contrary to the Supreme Court’s existing abortion decisions.
United States v. Buster
The Fourth Circuit held that a Terry search cannot be extended to allow officers to search a suspect’s bag after the suspect is handcuffed and placed face-down on the ground.
Sixth Circuit
Tiwari v. Friedlander
The Sixth Circuit rejected a challenge to a certificate-of-need statute that limited the number of home care providers that can serve a single county. The panel found that the statute had a rational basis and did not violate the Due Process Clause.
United States v. Russell
The Sixth Circuit held that a car passenger lacked standing to challenge police officers’ search of a car under the Fourth Amendment. Though the government did not challenge the passenger’s standing in the district court, the panel held that the government could nonetheless raise the issue on appeal because the district court’s decision amounted to plain error.
Seventh Circuit
United States v. Gibbs
The Seventh Circuit reversed a drug conviction, holding that the district court had attributed more methamphetamine to the defendant than the record supported. The panel explained that the prosecutor’s “eleventh-hour representations about what the evidence would show” were not sufficient to support the sentence.
Eleventh Circuit
Wildes v. Bitconnect International PLC
The Eleventh Circuit held that investors in a new cryptocurrency, which turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, could sue online coin promoters. The panel rejected the argument that federal securities laws only applied to solicitations directed at a particular consumer.
In the News:
Joe Biden announced that he was nominating Judge Katanji Brown Jackson of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to replace Justice Breyer on the Supreme Court. Here is the video of the announcement and some of the coverage:
The New York Times provided articles highlighting Judge Jackson’s work as a public defender, past opinions, and background.
The Wall Street Journal covered the appointment and provided some analysis of her opinions.
SCOTUSBlog covered the announcement and is also tracking reactions from Senators.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in several cases:
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis involves a website designer who does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples; she believes Colorado civil rights law might require her to.
Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco involves a dispute over whether several States can defend the Trump administration’s revised public charge rule, which the Biden administration does not wish to defend.
Biden v. Texas involves the Biden Administration’s attempt to reverse a Trump-era rule requiring asylum seekers to remain in Mexico.
State Decisions of Interest:
The North Carolina courts settled on a new redistricting map that divided districts roughly equally between Democrats and Republicans. Republican lawmakers have now asked the United States Supreme Court to intervene, which would be an unconventional step (because the North Carolina courts’ decisions rested on state-law grounds).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court selected a redistricting map proposed by Democratic plaintiffs.
After the Ohio Supreme Court threatened State lawmakers with contempt for failing to produce new maps that favored Republicans less heavily, the State’s partisan redistricting commission has begun considering new maps.
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.
I normally eschew, to the extent possible, political or partisan content because it isn’t the purpose of this newsletter. But I make an exception for the unprovoked invasion of a peaceful, democratic country.
I am neither a foreign policy nor military expert, and this isn’t a good forum for up-to-the-minute updates, so I’ll just let the quotes above speak for themselves.