Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 56)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 56)
Appellate decisions from the week of November 6-10, 2023
“[T]o hold otherwise would require striking down a facially neutral law that does not single out religious people for disfavored treatment and would effectively contradict the Supreme Court’s directive that a State need not subsidize private education. Such a determination, moreover, would implicitly assume that the people of Michigan cannot ‘prudently exercise’ their electoral power even following a full debate—’an unprecedented restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right held not just by one person but by all in common.’”
Judge Stranch, Hile v. Michigan
Decision Summaries
Fourth Circuit
K&R Contractors, LLC v. Keene
The Fourth Circuit held that a statute governing the appointment of Department of Labor Admnistrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) did not violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The panel held that was so despite the fact that ALJs are protected by two layers of statutory provisions preventing the President from firing Department employees without cause.
Fifth Circuit
VanDerStok v. Garland
The Fifth Circuit held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) lacked the authority to adopt a regulation designed to limit the availability of “ghost guns” — unregistered firearms that are sold in parts and can be bought and built by anyone without a background check. The panel held that the new regulation exceeded the ATF’s statutory mandate.
Sixth Circuit
Hile v. Michigan
The Sixth Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to a Michigan constitutional provision that prohibits the payment of any public money to any private school, including religious schools. The panel rejected the claim that the restriction prevented religious persons and schools from effectively lobbying their State government for aid or tuition help.
United States v. Allen
The Sixth Circuit upheld convictions for violating the federal murder-for-hire statute, rejecting the defendants’ claim that the government failed to prove a sufficient connection to interstate commerce. Even though the defendants never left Michigan or made any calls outside the state, some of their intrastate calls required the telephone compnay to use out-of-state switches. The panel held that this was a sufficient connection to interstate commerce based on existing precedent.
Bennett v. Hurley Medical Center
The Sixth Circuit rejected a student nurse’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim based on her host hospital’s decision to stop allowing her service dog to accompany her while working. The panel noted that the hospital initially allowed the dog, but stopped doing so when the dog caused allergic reactions.
Ninth Circuit
National Association of Wheat Growers v. Bonta
The Ninth Circuit upheld a district court decision enjoining the enforcement of a California law that would have required Roundup to carry a cancer warning. The panel held that, in this case, the law would run afoul of the First Amendment’s restrictions on compelled commercial speech.
Eleventh Circuit
Santos v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group
The Eleventh Circuit held that, to recover statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a consumer does not need to prove that he or she suffered actual damages from a reporting agency’s failure to comply with statutory requirements.
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 Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.
