Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 48)
Appellate decisions from the week of September 11-15, 2023
“Anti-discrimination laws undeniably serve valuable interests rooted in equality, justice, and fairness. And in a pluralistic society, these laws foster worthy goals such as inclusion and belonging. The Constitution also protects the right for minorities and majorities alike to hold certain views and to associate with people who share their same values. Often, anti-discrimination laws and the protections of the Constitution work in tandem to protect minority views in the face of dominant public opinions. . . [But] those policies may not themselves be utilized in a manner that transgresses or supersedes the government’s constitutional commitment to be steadfastly neutral to religion.”
~Judge Callahan, Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
Decision Summaries
Second Circuit
Vasquez v. Garland
The Second Circuit held that, for federal immigration law purposes, a New York law shortening the penalty for a crime of “moral turpitude” to 364 days was not retroactive, even if the law was retroactive for State-law purposes. Thus, a person convicted before the statutory change was still eligible for removal from the United States, having been convicted of a crime punishable by a sentence of one year or more.
Fifth Circuit
Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center v. Azalea Garden Properties
The Fifth Circuit held that a civil rights organization that employs “testers” to detect and challenge alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act did not have standing to challenge the alleged violations. The panel rejected several of the traditional bases for allowing such “tester” suits in a decision likely to prompt an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Sixth Circuit
Changizi v. Department of Health and Human Services
The Sixth Circuit rejected a complaint filed by Twitter users alleging that the platform’s decision to ban them for spreading COVID-19 misinformation was traceable to the Biden administratin and, as a result, violated the First Amendment.
Seventh Circuit
Conner v. Reagle
The Seventh Circuit held that the one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas claims cannot be equitably tolled, even where an inmate’s delay was based on the explicit (and incorrect) advice of his lawyers.
Ninth Circuit
Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Hose Unified School District Board of Education
Sitting en banc, The Ninth Circuit held that a California school district violated the First Amendment when it revoked the recognized-student-group status of a Christian group. The group requires student leaders to affirm a “Statement of Faith” that says sexual relationships should only be between one man and one woman within the confines of marriage.
Junior Sports Magazines v. Bonta
The Ninth Circuit held that, because California allows minors under the age of 18 to possess firearms in certain circumstances, a State law prohibiting firearms advertisements that are targetted at minors violates the First Amendment. That is so, the panel explained, even assuming the law targets only commercial speech.
United States v. Montoya
Sitting en banc, Ninth Circuit held that a district court must orally pronounce all discretionary conditions of supervised release at a defendant’s sentencing hearing for those conditions to be effective. Failure to do so, the panel explained, violates the defendant’s due process right to be present at sentencing.
Tenth Circuit
United States v. Leon
The Tenth Circuit held that an officer violated the Fourth Amendment by improperly extending a traffic stop beyond what was required to ticket a driver for unlawfully driving in the passing lane. Thus, the panel held, the district court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of drug trafficking.
Vincent v. Garland
The Tenth Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decisions changing the test for determining whether a law violates the right to bear arms did not overrule the Circuit’s earlier decision upholding the federal law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms.
Eleventh Circuit
City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospitality Holdings
The Eleventh Circuit held that, to voluntarily dismiss a claim under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must file a dismissal motion signed by all parties who have appeared in the lawsuit. The panel went on to explain that a motion signed only by those parties involved in the dismissal is not sufficient.
D.C. Circuit
In re Sealed Case
The D.C. Circuit rejected Congressman Scott Perry’s argument that all of his text messages were categorically precluded from FBI review under the Speech an Debate Clause. The panel explained that some communications with Executive Branch officials and most with fellow members of Congress were protected, the FBI was not categorically prohibited from reviewing all the Congressman’s text messages.
The D.C. Circuit held that, where a federal law or regulation incorporates standards promulgated by a third-party (such as technical standards developed by a private organizations), posting those third-party standards online does not violate federal copyright law. The panel explained that making third-party standards incorporated into laws or regulations publicly available is a “fair use.”
Any opinions expressed here are our 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 or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.
