Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 38)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 38)
Appellate decisions from the week of November 7-11, 2022
“In our adversarial justice system, a party has the responsibility to ‘produce the evidence against [another] by its own independent labors.’ The Fifth Amendment is thus grounded on this ‘overriding thought:’ that a witness ‘is guaranteed the right ‘to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will.’’ Appellants here voluntarily waived their privilege by sitting for their depositions, and appellees had the opportunity to determine the scope of that waiver through cross-examination. But once that testimonial event concluded, the Fifth Amendment again protected appellants, absent a further waiver.”
~ Judge Griffin, In Re: Flint Water Cases
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court, with two noted dissents (from Justice Thomas and Justice Alito), rejected Kelli Ward’s efforts to block the January 6 committee from obtaining her text messages and phone records.
Second Circuit
M.A. v. Rockland County Department of Health
The Second Circuit revived a lawsuit against a county health department challenging, on Free Exercise Clause grounds, an order barring unvaccinated children from attending school and another order barring them from public gatherings. The panel explained that there were material disputes of facts as to the purpose of the orders and whether they were motivated by religious animus.
Third Circuit
Stradford v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
The Third Circuit held that the Department of Corrections’ consideration of “community sensitivity” when considering sex offenders for halfway-house placement does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The panel held that there is a rational basis for treating sex-offenders differently from other offenders.
Fifth Circuit
Golden Glow Tanning Salon v. City of Columbus, Mississippi
The Fifth Circuit held that COVID-19 closure orders did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Substantive Due Process, because there was a rational basis for the orders. Judge Ho wrote a concurring opinion suggesting that, based on the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court should recognize a fundamental right to earn a living.
Sixth Circuit
In re: Flint Water Cases
The Sixth Circuit held that State officials did not waive their Fifth Amendment right against further self-incrimination when they gave a deposition in a civil case. The panel explained that their waiver was limtied to a single testimonial event and the district court therefore erred by compelling the State officials to testify in the trial in the civil case.
Hils v. Davis
The Sixth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not give police officesr and their union representatives the right to record interviews in police-misconduct cases.
Seventh Circuit
United States v. Moore
The Seventh Circuit held that a chemist’s affidavit suggesting that the purity of the drugs found in the defendant’s home might be lower than the DEA claimed was enough to call the factual basis for the defendant’s sentence into question. The district court therefore erred by failing to require the government to present evidence to support its drug quantity calculation.
Eighth Circuit
Nelson v. Wilhite
The Eighth Circuit held that a city ordinance prohibiting residents from owning pitbulls did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Substantive Due Process. While the statute might lead to some iniquities, the panel explained, there was a rational basis for the rule.
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.
