Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 41)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 41)
Appellate decisions from the week of December 5-9, 2022
“Essentially, the government invites us to read ‘and’ to mean ‘or,’ even as it concedes elsewhere in its briefs that this reading is mistaken. Neither the government nor our dissenting colleagues offer any authority that adopts this novel reading of ‘and,’ other than recent decisions by our sister circuits that concern the same statutory provision. . . . We decline to adopt that novel reading when it appears to have been crafted by the government specifically for this statute to achieve its preferred outcome.”
Judge William Pryor, United States v. Garcon
Decision Summaries
Second Circuit
United States v. Raniere
The Second Circuit held that a federal law prohibiting certain “commercial sex acts”—defined as “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or recieved by any person” does not require a monetary or financial component. The panel explained that a thing of value can include other benefits, such as “privileged positions within an organization.”
Third Circuit
United States v. Kwasnik
The Third Circuit held that a criminal defendant who wishes to appeal a district court order denying his post-trial motions must file a new notice of appeal after those motions are denied, even if he already filed a notice of appeal after his conviction. Because the defendant in this case did not, the panel refused to consider his arguments related to motions filed after his first notice of appeal.
Eighth Circuit
Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra
The Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court order enjoining the Biden administration from compelling insurers to provide gender-transition procedures according to its interpretation of the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination provisions.
Ninth Circuit
Waln v. Dysart School District
The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s order dismissing a student’s Sectino 1983 claim against her school, which alleged that the school violated her First Amendment rights by refusing to allow her to wear an eagle feather at graduation in accordance with her Native American Tribe’s religious beliefs. The panel explained that, because the school had allowed students to wear secular messages on their graduation caps, enforcing its no-decorations on caps policy only against religious decorations raised a valid First Amendment claim.
Eleventh Circuit
United States v. Garcon
The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that “and” means “and” in a federal statute laying out the factors precluding prisoners from seeking safety-valve relief under the Fist Step Act. That holding conflicts with earlier decisions from both the Fifth and Eighth Circuits which had said that a prisoner who met any one of the factors did not qualify for relief, essentially reading “and” to mean “or.”
State Decisions of Interest
The Washington Supreme Court held that a law requiring negotiations between the City of Spokane and public-employee unions be open to the public violated the State constitution.
In the News
The U.S. Supreme Court has amended its rules such that, as of January 1, anyone wishing to file an amicus brief in pending cases before the Court will not need the consent of the parties. This despite recent concerns from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and others about amicus briefs and their impact on the Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a First-Amendment challenge to a federal statute prohibiting anyone from encouraging others to enter the country without authorization.
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.
