Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 40)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 40)
Appellate decisions from the week of November 28 - December 2, 2022
It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president—but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation. The Richey test has been in place for nearly fifty years; its limits apply no matter who the government is investigating. To create a special exception here would defy our Nation’s foundational principle that our law applies to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.
~Per Curiam Opinion of the Eleventh Circuit, Trump v. United States
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court declined to lift the Eighth Circuit’s order halting President Biden’s student-loan-forgiveness program. But the Court also granted the government’s request expedite consideration of the case. There were no noted dissents.
First Circuit
Immediato v. Postmates, Inc.
The First Circuit held that food-delivery drivers for PostMates (and similar companies like Grub Hub) were not transportation workers whose empoyment lawsuits are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act. The panel distinguished their case from an earlier case involving Amazon delivery drivers.
United States v. Ramos-Carras
The First Circuit held that a district court plainly erred by basing an upward variance in a defendant’s sentence on evidence that was not in the record at the time of sentencing. The district court had relied on a description of relevant conduct in records from a Puerto Rico Commonwealth Court proceeding.
Third Circuit
United States ex rel. Ascolese v. Shoemaker Construction Co.
The Third Circuit held that recent amendments to the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) anti-retaliation provisions expanded its reach to cover both (1) efforts in furtherance of an FCA qui tam suit and (2) other efforts to stop one or more violations of the FCA. Thus, an employer need not be aware that an employee was contemplating an FCA suit to be subject to a retaliation claim.
United States v. Alexander
The Third Circuit held that so-called “hit and hold” operations—in which officers enter a home before obtaining a warrant, hold the premises and occupants while the obtain a warrant, and then search—do not violate the Fourth Amendment where the warrant was prepared before the entry and did not include information gained during the seizure. The panel further held that this is true even if exigent circumstances did not exist to justify the warrantless entry.
United States v. Banks
The Third Circuit held that the term “loss” in the Sentencing Guideline related to a “loss enhancement” in fraud cases applies only to actual loss, not intended loss. In doing so, the panel explained that the Sentencing Commission’s application note improperly expanded the scope of the guideline by arguing otherwise.
Fourth Circuit
United States v. Smith
The Fourth Circuit held that, because the federal false-statement statute is ambiguous as to whether Congress intended two false statements in the same interview to be considered separate crimes, the rule of lenity required the district court to dismiss one of two charges against a defendant accused of lying to the FBI.
United States v. Miller
The Fourth Circuit held that a district court erred in denying a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence collected during the course of a traffic stop. By performing a dog sniff after he had already printed a warning citatoin for the driver, the panel explained, the officer had unconstitutionally extended the length of the stop. Along the way, the panel also held that the district court erred by crediting an officer’s testimony about the stop that appeared to be contradicted by video evidence.
Sixth Circuit
Doster v. Kendall
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court order enjoining the Air Force from enforcing a vaccine mandate against service members with religious objections and certifying a class to challenge the policy under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The panel focused on the Air Force’s decision to grant exemptions to service members with secular reasons to decline the vaccine (e.g. pregnancy or allergies).
Fields v. Jordan
The Sixth Circuit held that a district court erred by refusing to grant a State prisoner’s petition for habeas corpus. The prisoner argued that his murder conviction was unconstitutional because jurors considered extrinsic evidence in convicting him—specifically they performed an “experiment” to see if they could remove a cabinet door in the jury room with a flat-tipped knife.
Eighth Circuit
United States v. Dewilfond
The Eighth Circuit held that, where an informant consented to officers placing a GPS tracker on his car before lending it to the defendant, the defendant could not challenge the search under the Fourth Amendment. He had no property interest or reasonable expectation of privacy in the car, the panel explained.
Parada v. Anoka County
The Eighth Circuit held that a county violated the Equal Protection Clause by holding every foreign-born arrestee (even those who had become U.S. citizens) until it could confirm with immigration authorities that they were lawfully in the country (a process that could take from 20 minutes to 6 hours). The panel explained that this was impermissible national-origin discrimination.
Eleventh Circuit
Trump v. United States
The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court order that appointed a special master to review files seized in the government’s raid of former president Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. The panel explained that defendants were not generally permitted to sue to block the government’s review of materials seized under a valid search warrant and refused to create a special exception to that rule for former presidents.
Baxter v. Roberts
The Eleventh Circuit revived a plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim alleging that an officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The panel explained that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the officer improperly extended a traffic stop by attempting a dog sniff after having already prepared a warning citation.
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.
