Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 4)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 4)
Appellate decisions from the week of April 12-16, 2021
“Under the Constitution, drivers do not need ‘stories’ to travel on interstate highways. … [P]olice officers may [not] insist that a driver who is lawfully stopped for a minor and routine traffic infraction be able to convince the officer that she is not a criminal.” ~ Judge Hamilton, United States v. Cole
Here is a recap of key federal appellate decisions from last week:
Fifth Circuit
Impax Laboratories v. FTC
The Fifth Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the FTC’s judgment that Impax’s reverse-settlement (in which it accepted payment in exchange for delaying production of a generic drug) was anti-competitive. It rejected Impax’s attempts to show that the agreement was actually pro-competitive.
Sixth Circuit
Preterm-Cleveland v. McCloud
A badly-fractured en banc Sixth Circuit upheld an Ohio law forbidding doctors from performing abortions if the doctor knows the reason the mother is seeking the abortion is that the fetus has Downs Syndrome. The Court held that the law did not place an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.
Seventh Circuit
United States v. Cole
The Seventh Circuit held that an officer violated the Fourth Amendment by unreasonably extending a traffic stop. The officer spent several minutes asking the driver questions about his itinerary even though they were not related to the reason for the stop.
Lewis v. Zatecky
The Seventh Circuit granted Lewis’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the Indiana state courts had unreasonably applied the Supreme Court’s holding in Cronic. It explained that by “deferring” to Lewis and presenting no arguments or evidence during his sentencing, defense counsel “entirely failed to function as [Lewis’s] advocate.”
United States v. Outland
The Seventh Circuit held that the district court erred by considering only the voluntariness of Outland’s statements to police, which he gave two hours after he was unconscious and incapacitated by a drug overdose. The Court explained that the district court should also have considered whether Outland’s waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent.
Eighth Circuit
United States v. Oakie
The Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to admit evidence of Oakie’s earlier charges for sexual assault but exclude evidence that he was acquitted. It held that, because the acquittal was not equivalent to a finding of innocence, it was not relevant. The Court also upheld the district court’s decision to consider the acquitted conduct at sentencing.
Ninth Circuit
Salisbury v. Santa Monica
The Ninth Circuit held that a resident who neither pays rent nor provides any other form of consideration to his landlord cannot assert a disability-discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act Amendments. The Court explained that it is irrelevant whether, under California law, the plaintiff would have inherited the lease from his father.
Eleventh Circuit
In re Wild
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Crime Victims Rights Act does not create an independent cause of action for victims, even if it does give them rights as to an ongoing prosecution. Wild had filed suit in an attempt to force the federal government to address its improper handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.
DC Circuit
Webb v. US Vets
The DC Circuit held that a plaintiff need not have paid rent to his landlord in order to bring a disability discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act. It also emphasized that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally.
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.
