Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 6)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 6)
Appellate decisions from the week of April 26-30, 2021
“At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. … If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.” ~ Justice Gorsuch, Niz-Chavez v. Garland
With apologies for being a day behind, below is a summary of last week’s significant federal appellate decisions:
Supreme Court of the United States
Niz-Chavez v. Garland
The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit’s holding that the government provided Niz-Chavez with notice of removal proceedings sufficient to satisfy the so-called “time stop rule.” Nonpermanent resident aliens may be entitled to discretionary relief from removal if, among other things, they have lived in the U.S. continuously for 10 years. The “time stop rule” provides that time spent here after receiving a notice of removal does not count.
Here, the government gave Niz-Chavez all the required notice information, but did so in two documents rather than one. The first listed the removal charges against him. The second (sent two months later) listed the time and place of his hearing. The Supreme Court held, with Justice Gorsuch writing, that this was not sufficient because federal law requires the information to be provided in “a” single notice.
Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
Alaska v. Wright
The Supreme Court summarily reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision granting a federal prisoner habeas relief under Section 2255. The prisoner had been convicted of failing to register as a sex offender based on a prior state conviction and had attempted to mount a constitutional challenge to that earlier conviction. The Supreme Court held that Section 2254 was the only means to challenge a state conviction, even if a prisoner is in federal custody on a later federal charge based on that state conviction.
First Circuit
Boston Parent Coalition v. School Committee of the City of Boston
The First Circuit refused to stay pending appeal a district court ruling refusing to enjoin Boston City Schools from announcing the results of its system for admitting students to Boston Latin School and two other prestigious schools in the area. Parents of white and Asian students argued that awarding seats beginning with students in the lowest-income zip codes amounted to racial discrimination. The Court rejected this contention, finding that the system was race neutral and that the district was not required to award seats based on GPA alone.
Second Circuit
McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Associates
The Second Circuit held that plaintiffs had not established standing where a current- or former-employer accidentally sent their personal information to other employees because they had not shown a substantial risk of identity theft. The data was not disclosed to a third party and the plaintiffs had not shown it has been misused. Further, the sensitive nature of the data alone was not enough to give the plaintiffs standing and they could not manufacture standing by purchasing identity protection services.
Fourth Circuit
United States v. Green
The Fourth Circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded for re-sentencing. It held that the district court erred in sentencing Green as a career offender because Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Fifth Circuit
Douglass v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisa
The Fifth Circuit affirmed district court decisions dismissing claims by families of U.S. sailors killed in a collision between a Japanese ship and the U.S.S. Fitgerald (a Navy destroyer) in Japanese waters. The Court held that U.S. courts could not—consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment—establish personal jurisdiction over the Japanese ship’s owner because it was a foreign corporation and the lawsuit did not relate to its contacts with the U.S.
Sanchez v. Oliver
The Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment to a mental health professional who removed a pretrial detainee from suicide watch despite allegedly knowing the risk he was suicidal. The Court held that, as the employee of a private company hired to provide health services to the county jail, neither Oliver nor any other employee of the company was entitled to qualified immunity against deliberate indifference claims.
Sixth Circuit
Online Merchants Guild v. Cameron
The Sixth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction barring the Kentucky Attorney General from applying its price gouging laws against sellers on Amazon who had taken advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic by charging outrageous prices for sanitizer, disinfecting wipes, masks, and other cleaning and protective items. The Court held that, where the Kentucky AG sought only to pursue sales by Kentucky-based sellers to Kentucky consumers, the investigation was unlikely to run afoul of the dormant commerce clause.
Seventh Circuit
Smith v. Brookhart
The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus and instead directed the court to issue an unconditional writ providing for Smith’s immediate release. It concluded that, even under AEDPA’s deferential treatment of state court rulings, there was insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s convictions. It chided the district court for eliding the difference between “no evidence” and “insufficient evidence to support a verdict.” The Court pointed to the unreliability of an alleged co-conspirator, the presence of alternative suspects, and the lack of a positive identification as reasons supporting its decision.
United States v. Hammond
The Seventh Circuit rejected, among other things, Hammond’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the government’s collection of his real-time cell phone location data. The Court held that, even after the Supreme Court’s 2018 Carpenter decision (opinion here), this did not amount to a search because it was equivalent of using a beeper to track a suspect (provided that there is no trespass on the suspect’s property).
Eighth Circuit
United States v. Pancheco
The Eighth Circuit held (in contrast to the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Cole, covered here) that an officer did not unreasonably extend a traffic stop by having a dog perform a drug sniff when a suspect was unable to answer itinerary questions to the officer’s satisfaction. The Court stressed the odd nature of the suspect’s one-way rental and his nervousness as factors supporting the search.
Ninth Circuit
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Regan
The Ninth Circuit overturned a 2017 EPA decision declining to take action on a 2007 petition to ban foods containing residue of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which can cause harm to infants in utero. The Court held that the EPA could not ignore its own findings that the chemical caused harm below its earlier safe usage thresholds and that the agency had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the petition. It ordered the EPA to take remedial action within 60 days.
Of Interest
On Friday, the Supreme Court of Kansas upheld a law banning “wrongful birth” lawsuits in which parents seek to recover costs of childcare after a doctor fails to warn them of serious fetal abnormalities in time for them to terminate the pregnancy. The majority explained that, because this was a new cause of action recognized in 1990 rather than one recognized at common law at the time the Kansas Constitution was adopted, the law did not violate the parents’ right to a jury trial or another provision of the state constitution.
Postscript
It has been a month since I started these updates. So I wanted to take a moment to thank all of you for subscribing to these newsletters.
I am flattered by and grateful for each subscription. And I’m happy to know that so many people share (or are at least willing to indulge) my interest in the federal appellate system.
As of today, Appellate Happenings is one person away from having 100 subscribers, which I must admit I wasn’t sure would ever happen. So if you know of one more person who might be interested, please forward this along or share it on your social media.
Thank you again for all of your support and encouragement!
Any opinions expressed here are my 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) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.
