Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 58)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 58)
Appellate decisions from the week of November 27, 2023
“President Trump’s argument, though, reaches considerably further: he insists that all of a President’s speech on matters of public concern, as a categorical rule, is an exercise of official presidential responsibility. That is a sweeping proposition, and one that ultimately sweeps too far.”
Judge Srinivasan, Blassingame v. Trump
Decision Summaries
First Circuit
Milton, MA v. FAA
The First Circuit held that a municipality does not have Article III standing ito challenge Federal Aviation Administration flight procedure decisions that cause increased noise pollution in asurrounding area. The panel explained that this is because the municipal entity itself cannot suffer the alleged injury.
Second Circuit
United States ex rel. Weiner v. Siemens AG
The Second Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal of a relator’s claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) for untimely service of process. The panel agreed with the appellant: because the district court never expressly ordered the relator to serve the defendants in accordance with the FCA, the clock for service of process never began to run, and dismissal for untimely service was improper.
Third Circuit
US v. Harris
The Third Circuit denied the government’s petition for rehearing en banc, maintaining its holding that aggravated assault is not a categorical “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. In his concurrence, Judge Jordan expressed his frustration at the mandates of the “categorical approach,” stating the analysis often leads to “perverse results.” Judge Jordan then went on to propose a more “fact-based” approach in order to achieve uniformity and consistency among the federal judiciary.
Fourth Circuit
US v. Brantley
The Fourth Circuit held that criminal defendants are not excused from the usual timeliness rules for filing a notice of appeal, even when challenging sentencing court’s addition of special conditions of supervised release in a written judgement without including them in the oral sentence.
US v. Brewbaker
The Fourth Circuit held that a government indictment which alleges both horizontal and vertical restraint of trade does not state a per se violation of the Sherman Act “that economics showed would invariably lead to anticompetitive effects.” As such, the panel determined that this count of the indictment should have been dismissed for failing to state an offense.
Sixth Circuit
Ohio v. Becerra
The Sixth Circuit held that the Department of Health and Human Services exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a final rule eliminating prior requirements that medical facility recipients of federal funds maintain strict physical and financial separation between their federally funded programs and any abortion-related services they might provide. Therefore, the panel reversed, in part, the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent the effect of the new rule.
D.C. Circuit
Blassingame v. Trump
The D.C. Circuit held that former President Trump is not entitled to official-act immunity against civil cases for his actions leading up to and on January 6. “When a first-term President opts to seek a second term,” the panel explained, “his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act.” Thus, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of former President Trump’s motion to dismiss the claims brought by Capitol Police officers and members of Congress who were at the Capitol that day.
[Note: This decision does not relate to D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan’s decision denying former President Trump’s immunity claims in the Special Counsel’s criminal case against him related ot the January 6 insurrection. The Special Counsel has asked the Supreme Court to bypass the D.C. Circuit and review Judge Chutkan’s decision immediately and the high court has ordered expedited briefing on that request.]
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.
