Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 50)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 50)
Appellate decisions from the week of September 25-29, 2023
“Ultimately, ‘[t]he purpose and obvious effect of doing away with the requirement of a guilty intent is to ease the prosecution's path to conviction.’ . . . But where thirty years are at stake, holding the government to its burden of establishing the defendant's knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt is paramount to maintaining our understanding of the choice between good and evil. Holding otherwise would mean that a defendant ‘can be subject to [an additional thirty years] imprisonment, despite absolute ignorance of the gun's firing capabilities, if the gun [used in a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense] turns out to be an automatic.’”
~ Judge Gelpi, United States v. Perez-Greaux
Decision Summaries
First Circuit
United States v. Perez-Greaux
Creating a circuit split with the Eleventh and D.C. Circuits, the First Circuit held that, to obtain a conviction for unlawfully possessing a machine gun, the government must prove that the defendant was aware that the weapon he possessed was a machine gune. The panel rejected arguments that it was enough to show that the weapon had the characteristics of a machine gun.
Third Circuit
Pesikan v. Attorney General
The Third Circuit held that a conviction for driving under the influence, based on a driver’s consumption of marijuana, does not qualify as a “controlled substance” offense for immigration law purposes. Thus, it cannot support deportation.
Sixth Circuit
L.W. v. Skrmetti
Doe v. Thornbury
The Sixth Circuit held that the Constitution does not prohibit States from restricting transitional treatments for trangender children. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ due process claims and emphasized its reluctance to intervene in what it characterized as the democratic debate over transgender care.
Ninth Circuit
United States v. Idaho
The Ninth Circuit stayed a district court’s order enjoining an Idaho law restricting abourtion access in the State. The panel suggested that the government was unlikely to succeed in its argument that the Idaho law was preempted by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, “which was enacted to ensure that the poor and uninsured receive emergency medical care at hospitals receiving Medicare reimbursement, and requires emergency room doctors to stabilize patients’ emergency medical conditions before transferring them.”
Sidenote
Please also take a moment to congratulate my co-author, Antonia, who found out last week that she passed the Pennsylvania bar exam. Congratulations, Antonia! Welcome to the profession.
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.
