Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 51)
Appellate decisions from the week of October 2-6, 2023
“The Individual Plaintiffs adduced extensive evidence that social-media platforms have engaged in censorship of certain viewpoints on key issues and that the government has engaged in a years-long pressure campaign designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints. The district court did not clearly err in crediting the Individual Plaintiffs’ theory that the social-media platforms’ censorship decisions were likely attributable at least in part to the platforms’ reluctance to risk the adverse legal or regulatory
consequences that could result from a refusal to adhere to the government’s directives.”
~Fifth Circuit, Per Curium, Missouri v. Biden
Decision Summaries
Third Circuit
Ingram v. Experian Information Solutions
The Third Circuit reversed the district court and held that the Federal Credit Reporting Act does not contain an “implied” exception allowing the furnisher of credit information discretion to refuse to investigate an indirect dispute it deems frivolous or irrelevant. The panel explained that, though such furnishers have this discretion when consumers submit direct disputes, the Act does not provide the same discretion when disputes are received secondhand from a consumer reporting agency.
Fifth Circuit
Missouri v. Biden
On petition for panel rehearing, the Fifth Circuit modified an injunction issued based on allegations from a group of social-media users and two states allegeing that numerous federal officials coerced social-media platforms into censoring certain social-media content, in violation of the First Amendment. In its per curium opinion, the panel held that the plaintiffs did have standing against the government for its actions in pressuring the private companies into compliance. Further, the panel held that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success in proving that some of the named government officials abridged their free speech, and thus only those officials could be subject to the pretrial injunction.
Sixth Circuit
Lichtenstein v. Hargett
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint, holding that Tennessee’s law criminalizing the distribution of the official form for applying to vote absentee is constitutional under the First Amendment. The panel explained that distribution is mere conduct, not speech, and the law neutrally applies no matter the message that a person seeks to convey.
Eleventh Circuit
Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc., et al. v. City of Mobile
The Eleventh Circuit held that a city cannot support a zoning decision that restricts a religious society’s right to worship freely simply by citing to its concerns for neighborhood character or increased traffic. Such concerns, the panel stated, are not well-defined government interests, nor do they satisfy a strict scrutiny analysis of a government’s decision to target a minority faith’s land use application.
Johnson v. Dunn
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court and held that a law enforcement’s questioning of a passenger in a vehicle at a traffic stop, without reason to suspect that the passenger had committed a crime, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Further, the panel held that it was not clearly established that an officer could not ask a passenger to identify himself absent reasonable suspicion. As such, the panel ordered the district court to grant the defendant officer’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity.
U.S. v. Steiger
The Eleventh Circuit held that a specific statement of explanation is required when a district court imposes an above-guideline sentence. Absent such explanation, the Eleventh Circuit has adopted a “per se rule of reversal” for the error. Thus, the panel found that the defendant was entitled to a remand of his sentence of 20 years of imprisonment following the revocation of his probation where the Sentencing Guidelines recommended a sentence of 12 to 18 months of imprisonment.
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.
