Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 45)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 45)
Appellate decisions from the week of May 8-12, 2023
Companies that choose to sell products in various States must normally comply with the laws of those various States. Assuredly, under this Court’s dormant Commerce Clause decisions, no State may use its laws to discriminate purposefully against out-of-state economic interests. But the pork producers do not suggest that California’s law offends this principle. Instead, they invite us to fashion two new and more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of States to regulate goods sold within their borders. We decline that invitation. While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.
~Justice Gorsuch, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
Ciminelli v. United States
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Second Circuit’s right-to-control theory of the federal wire fraud statute. That theory allowed the government to convict a defendant by showing that he schemed to deprive a victim of potentially valuable economic information necessary to make economic decisions.
Percoco v. United States
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a former aid to former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, holding that the Second Circuit’s standard for holding a private citizen liable under the federal honest-services fraud statute was too vague.
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
The Supreme Court held that a California law prohibiting the sale of pork products produced from pigs who were raised in inhumane conditions did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the law in question discriminated against out-of-state businesses.
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland
The Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal immigration statute requiring immigrants seeking relief from removal to exhaust their administrative remedies before going to court was not jurisdictional. Thus, the requirement can be waived under certain circumstances.
First Circuit
United States v. Abelaziz
The First Circuit overturned the convictions of two parents convicted as part of the DOJ’s “Varsity Blues” investigation into payments to colleges in exchange for admission. The panel held, among other things, that (1) payments to the proposed victim of honest-services fraud (in this case the colleges) could not be counted as a bribe, (2) that admissions slots do not categorically qualify as “property” under the federal wire and mail fraud statutes, and (3) that the district court erred in allowing the government to present a so-called “rimless wheel” theory of conspiracy, presenting evidence of unrelated conduct by other parents. The panel rejected the defendants’ arguments that their actions categorically where not criminal under the federal programs bribery statute.
Fifth Circuit
United States v. Ramirez
The Fifth Circuit held that a defendant did not forfeit his property or privacy interests in his jacket when he tossed it over a fence on onto his mother’s property. Thus, the panel explained, he had Fourth Amendment standing to challenge law enforcement officers’ warrantless seizure and search of that jacket.
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.
