Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 49)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 49)
Appellate decisions from the week of September 18-22, 2023
“Lindell's phone was seized as part of a federal investigation into the publication of forensic images of election software. . . Lindell argues the investigation violates his First Amendment rights and that the seizure of his phone violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against general warrants. Lindell's litigation is a tactic to, at a minimum, interfere with and, at most, enjoin a criminal investigation and ultimately hamper federal prosecution related to his, or others', public disclosure of forensic images of the County's election management servers; affording such relief is not only contrary to the purposes of a preliminary injunction, it would open the door to a deluge of similar litigation by those under criminal investigation.”
~Judge Erickson, Lindell v. U.S.
Decision Summaries
Second Circuit
Murphy v. Hughson et al.
The Second Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment is violated when a misdemeanor arrestee entering a prison is subjected to an ad hoc strip search without reasonable suspicion. The panelacknowledged the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, which states that procedural searches are constitutional. However, the panel noted, the law does not extend to prison guards making ad hoc decisions of who must submit to the invasive search method.
Third Circuit
Davis v. Wigen
The Third Circuit clarified that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, an individual can suffer a substantial burden on religious exercise even when the particular religious exercise is not mandatory. Thus, the prisoner plaintiff in this case did establish a claim under the Act when he alleged that the facility refused to let him marry, even though he met all of the facility’s qualifications.
Greenberg v. Lehocky
The Third Circuit reversed the district court and held that the attorney, who claimed his educational materials contained offensive language that might lead to professsional sanction, did not stand in danger of violating Pennsylvania’s rule of professional conduct prohibiting harassment and discrimination in the practice of law. Thus, the attorney did not have standing to challenge the state ethical rule under the First Amendment.
Fifth Circuit
U.S. v. Mississippi
The Fifth Circuit reversed a district court decision holding that Mississippi’s mental health system violated Title II of the ADA . The panel, instead, determined that the federal government did not prove a cause of action for discrimination in violation of the ADA. Further, the panel held that the district court’s extensive remedial order, establishing strict guidelines and reporting mandates, was overly broad.
Eighth Circuit
Lindell v. U.S.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction to prohibit the government from using seized cell phone data in his prosecution, identifying the motion as “a tactic to, at a minimum, interfere with and, at most, enjoin a criminal investigation” of unlawfully disseminating election data. Despite this strong disapproval of the defendant’s claim, the panel did reverse the district court’s refusal to exercise equitable jurisdiction over the defendant’s motion for the return of his cell phone.
Ninth Circuit
U.S. v. Marschall
The Ninth Circuit held that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not require a finding of scienter before convicting a defendant of shipping misbranded drugs in interstate commerce, despite the fact that each of the statutory elements criminalize otherwise innocent conduct. Rather than adding an express scienter requirement, the panel held that Congress properly added a prior conviction requirement, which largely serves the same purpose.
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.
