Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 52)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 52)
Appellate decisions from the week of October 9-13, 2023
Here, the elements of a frustration defense are present in spades. . . . The plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that URI breached its implied tuition contracts with them when it moved instruction online in the middle of the spring semester of 2020. [But] at the time the tuition contracts were entered, neither the plaintiffs nor URI held the basic assumption that Governor Raimondo's emergency orders would be issued. After all, the pandemic was a once-in-acentury event, which blossomed without warning and which could not reasonably have been anticipated.
Judge Selya, Burt v. Board of Trustees
Decision Summaries
First Circuit
Burt v. Board of Trustiees, University of Rhode Island
The First Circuit rejected a breach of contract action brought by students alleging that the university violated its agreement with them by moving instruction online during the COVID-19 pandemic. The panel explained that the university “did not explicitly promise exclusive in-person, on-campus instruction in return for tuition” based on vague and generalized representations in the course catalog and that COVID-19 was a “frustrating event” that justified departing from any implied promise.
Fourth Circuit
Bowen v. Adidas America Inc.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing a former student-athlete’s RICO claim against various members of a college-basketball bribery scheme who bribed Bowen’s father. The panel explained that he did not demonstrate an injury to his business or property for RICO purposes.
Fifth Circuit
Association of Club Executives of Dallas v. City of Dallas
The Fifth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that struck down a Dallas ordinance requiring sexually-oriented businesses to close between 2:00 am and 6:00am. The panel explained that such regulations were permissible under longstanding Supreme Court precedent.
Collins v. Department of the Treasury
The Fifth Circuit again rejected a claim by private shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac challenging, on constitutional grounds, the validity of certain changes to the terms of preferred stock purchase agreements between those organizations and the Treasury, entered in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The panel explained that the shareholders had not shown that for-cause restrictions on the President’s power to remove the Director of teh Feederal Housing Finance Agency caused them harm.
Baker v. City of McKinney
The Fifth Circuit held that the Takings Clause did not require the City of McKinney to reimburse an innocent party’s home after its police department used “armored vehicles, explosives, and toxic-gas grenades” to resolve a hostage situation inside the home. The panel explained that “as a matter of history and precedent” compensation is not required where “it was objectively necessary for officers to damage or destroy . . . property in an active emergency to prevent imminent harm to persons.”
Eighth Circuit
Nieters v. Holtan
The Eighth Circuit revived a civil rights claim filed by a journalist against a Des Moines police officer who pepper-sprayed him and tackled him to the ground while he was covering a protest. The panel explained that there were legitimate disputes of fact as to whether the officer had probable cause to believe that the journalist violated the law.
Tenth Circuit
Wyoming Gun Owners v. Gray
The Tenth Circuit held that a Wyoming election disclosure law requiring organizations to disclose the identity of donors related to campaign advertisemetns costing more than $1,000 was unconstitutional as applied to a gun advocacy group. The panel explained that the law failed exacting scrutiny and that at least one portion of the law was unconstitutionally vague.
Eleventh Circuit
United States v. Pate
The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a federal law “which criminalizes the filing of retaliatory liens agaisnt the property of . . . any officer or employee of the United States” does not reach former public employees. The majority thus vacated the convictions of a defendatn who, in addition to occasionally styling himself as an “heir to the kingdom of Morocco,” also filed baseless liens against various government officials including a former IRS Commissioner and Secretary of the Treasury.
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.
