Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 39)
Appellate decisions from the weeks of November 14-25, 2022
“Nowhere are the First Amendment rights of free speech and association more essential, or more fiercely guarded, than in the context of free and open elections. Self-government depends on ensuring that speech intended to support, challenge, criticize, or celebrate political candidates remains unrestricted. But at the end of every hard-fought political campaign lies the ballot box, where our constitutional democracy depends equally on States fulfilling their solemn duty to regulate elections to ensure fairness and honesty, even where doing so may burden some First Amendment rights.”
Judge Krause, Mazo v. New Jersey Secretary of State
A belated Happy Thanksgiving to all of you! I hope you were all able to spend the holiday with loved ones and enjoyed all the Thanksgiving foods and fixings.
This issue covers decisions from both the week before Thanksgiving and the shortened Thanksgiving week.
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court rejected former President Trump’s effort to block a House committee from obtaining copies of his tax returns in a short order with no noted dissents. Chief Justice Roberts previously granted a temporary stay to allow the full court to consider the former president’s request.
First Circuit
United States v. Moffett
The First Circuit held that a district court violated a defendant’s constitutional rights by submitting an improper verdict form to the jury, vacating wire fraud and identity theft convictions related to a health insurance fraud scheme. The panel held that it was improper for the form to expressly refer to certain exhibits selected by the government and not any other evidence in the case.
United States v. Gauthier
The First Circuit upheld a district court’s decision refusing to award cooperation credit to a defendant at sentencing. The panel found that the defendant’s refusal to plead guilty or stipulate to his culpability at trial supported the district court’s conclusion.
Third Circuit
Range v. Attorney General
The Third Circuit rejected a Second-Amendment, as-applied challenge to a federal law prohibiting felons from owning firearms, which the plaintiff ran afoul of by improperly obtaining welfare benefits. The panel explained that the Second Amendment does not outlaw “longstanding prohibitions” on gun ownership and that “the people” constitutionally entitled to bear arms are the “law-abiding, responsible citizens of the polity.”
Mazo v. New Jersey Secretary of State
The Third Circuit upheld a New Jersey law requiring candidates to obtain a person or corporation’s consent before using their name in the six-word slogan the State permits candidates to include on primary ballots next to their name. The panel held that this limitation did not violate the First Amendment.
Clark v. Coupe
The Third Circuit revived a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment challenge alleging that—in light of his manic depression and paranoid schizophrenia—placing him in solitary confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The panel rejected the district court’s conclusion that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity.
Fourth Circuit
United States v. Williams
The Fourth Circuit held that, when determining whether to civilly commit a federal prisioner about to be released from BOP custody based on a mental illness, a district court must consider whether terms of supervision imposed by the sentencing court might allow the prisoner to be released rather than committed. The panel vacated the district court’s commitment order in this case because the record did not show that the district court appropriatly considered supervision conditions in this case.
Fifth Circuit
Earl v. Boeing Company
The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs who sued Boeing and Southwest Airlines, alleging that they concealed serious safety defects with the Boeing 737-MAX aircraft, lacked standing. The panel explained that none of the plaintiffs had suffered physical or economic injury as a result of the defect, rejecting a claim that they would have paid less for tickets had the defect been properly disclosed.
National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Assocation v. Texas
The Fifth Circuit held that the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, which empowers a private entity to formulate detailed rules governing the thoroughbred horseracing industry, was facially unconstitutional. Because the constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, the panel explained, it is inappropriate to delegate legislative authority to a private entity.
Sixth Circuit
Kentucky v. Yellen
The Sixth Circuit upheld a permanent injunction barring the U.S. Treasury Department form enforcing the American Rescue Plan Act’s “offset” provision against Tennessee, holding that the provision is too vague notwithstanding a Treasury Department rule purporting to address Tennessee’s concerns. The offset provision was designed to prevent States from cutting taxes and then merely using COVID-19 relief funds to offset the lost revenue. Tennessee was concerned that the Act could be read as effectively prohibiting a state from enacting any tax cuts after accepting COVID relief funding.
Hewitt-El v. Burgess
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision granting a state prisoner’s petition for habeas corpous on ineffective assistance grounds. Writing that “[t]o recite the facts of this case is nearly to decide it,” the panel explained that defense counsel’s representation fell below the constitutional minimum because he failed to call three witnesses who could have supported the defendant’s alibi. Counsel did not call the witnesses because he was mistaken about the time the alleged crime occurred.
Eighth Circuit
United States v. Griggs
Among other things, the Eighth Circuit held that an officer’s use of a seized cell-phone to set up a drug buy did not violate the federal Wiretap Act. That Act makes it unlawful to intercept electronic communications subject to certain exceptions. Here, because the officer was acting under color of law and was a party to the conversation, the panel explained, there was no violation of the statute.
Nebraska v. Biden
The Eighth Circuit granted a request from Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina to stay President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. The panel rejected the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiff States lacked standing, focusing on the potential harm to Missouri’s Higher Education Loan Authority. Besides noting that the merits of the case involve substantial legal questions, the panel did not consider whether the plaintiffs states were likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge.
Ninth Circuit
Borden v. eFinancial, LLC
The Ninth Circuit held that eFinancial’s use of a sequential number generator to pick the order to call customers who had provided the company with their phone numbers did not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The panel explained that the TCPA requires the use of an autodialer which both generates and dials random or sequential numbers.
Eleventh Circuit
Marti v. Iberostar Hoteles Y Apartamentos S. L.
The Eleventh Circuit held that a district court’s stay of a civil case for three years was immoderate and unlawful. The case involves a lawsuit under the Helms-Burton Act, which creates a federal cause of action against copmanies “trafficking” in private property conviscated by the Cuban government. The European Union forbids participation in such lawsuits and the defendant company in this case applied for an exception to that rule but has not heard back. Nonetheless, the panel held that an indefinite three-year stay effectively pushed the plaintiff out of federal court and was improper.
State Decisions of Interest:
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that, contrary to the Georgia Secretary of State’s interpretation, Saturday early voting is permitted in the U.S. Senate runoff election between incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock and challenger Herschel Walker.
The Georgia Supreme Court also stayed a lower-court ruling overturning the State’s six-week abortion ban. The lower court concluded that, under State law, the ban was invalid because it was decided before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade.
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.
