Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 61)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 61)
Appellate decisions from the weeks of December 18 and 25, 2023
“Here, though, the Plan did not use the race of any individual student to determine his or her admission to an Exam School. And the Coalition offers no evidence that geography, family income, and GPA were in any way unreasonable or invalid as selection criteria for public-school admissions programs. . . . ‘The entire point of the Equal Protection Clause is that treating someone differently because of their skin color is not like treating them differently because they are from a city or from a suburb . . . .’ So too here, treating students differently based on the zip codes in which they reside was not like treating them differently because of their skin color.”
~ Judge Kayatta, Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. School Committee for the City of Boston
Decision Summaries
First Circuit
Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. School Committee for the City of Boston
The First Circuit upheld Boston Public Schools’ admissions program, which aimed to increase diversity using a combination of GPA, zip code, and income, rather than explicitly race-based criteria. The panel reached this conclusion despite some evidence of racial bias in a relevant committee meeting and the school system’s analysis of the impact of various factors on the incoming class’s racial make up.
Second Circuit
Clark v. Hanley
The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim for untimeliness where the district court found her “neither plausible nor credible” as to her request for equitable tolling based on the emotional harm she suffered due to the sexual abuse at issue in the matter. In his dissent, Judge Chin stated that he believed the district court failed to afford the plaintiff the opportunity to sufficiently support her request and intruded into the province of the jury.
Fifth Circuit
Netflix Incorporated v. Babin
The Fifth Circuit held that a district court was not required to abstain based on the Younger doctrine (based on a pending State-court criminal case) from considering Netflix’s constitutional challenge to a Texas prosecution. The panel explained that a State has no legitimate interest in a bad-faith prosecution intended only to harass, which is what Netflix alleged was going on in Texas.
Seventh Circuit
Alicea v. Cook County
The Seventh Circuit rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to a courthouse’s use of security cameras to monitor holding cell toilets.
United States v. Bingham
The Seventh Circuit held that, even though the safety-valve provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines do not apply where a defendant possessed a firearm, the mere fact that the defendant had received a firearms enhancement did not disqualify him for safety-valve relief. The panel explained that the firearms exclusion in the safety-valve guideline is narrower than the criteria for imposing the enhancement.
Ninth Circuit
Elden v. Nirvana, LLC
The Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff’s challenge to an iconic Nirvana album cover, which included a nude picture of the plaintiff as a baby, was not time-barred because each republication of the album cover was a new injury.
U.S. v. Fortenberry
The Ninth Circuit held that it was improper for the district court to serve as the venue for the defendant’s false statements trial where the defendant did not make the false statements within the jurisdiction. The panel rejected the district court’s justification that the false statements had an effect on the federal investigation within the jurisdiction, as the test has no support in the Constitution, statute, or historical practice.
Eleventh Circuit
Georgia v. Meadows
The Eleventh Circuit held that Mark Meadows cannot remove his Georgia criminal prosecution based on attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election to federal court based on the federal-officer-removal statute. The panel explained that the provision does not apply to former federal officials and, in any event, the charged conduct was not part of Mr. Meadows’s official duties.
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.
