Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 64)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 64)
Appellate decisions from the week of January 22, 2024
“Villarreal and others portray her as a martyr for the sake of journalism. That is inappropriate. She could have followed Texas law, or challenged that law in court, before reporting nonpublic information from the backchannel source. By skirting Texas law, Villarreal revealed information that could have severely emotionally harmed the families of decedents and interfered with ongoing investigations. Mainstream, legitimate media outlets routinely withhold the identity of accident victims or those who committed suicide until public officials or family members release that information publicly. Villarreal sought to capitalize on others’ tragedies to propel her reputation and career.”
Judge Jones, Villarreal v. City of Laredo
Decision Summaries
First Circuit
Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands Inc.
The First Circuit affirmed all but one of Mexico’s claims against seven U.S. gun manufacturers and one gun distributor. The panel agreed that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) generally applies to lawsuits initiated by foreign governments for harm suffered outside the United States. However, the law does not bar Mexico’s action in this case, which alleges the entities knowingly violated the law and illegally distributed firearms.
Fourth Circuit
Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park
The Fourth Circuit held that the defendant mobile home park did not properly establish a defense against the claim that it disproportionately ousted Latinos from renting units. The panel stated that the district court misconstrued the text of the criminal statute prohibiting the concealment of undocumented immigrants, which the park was not in danger of violating. Further, the panel found that the defendant did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate its adherence to the law as a defense.
U.S. v. King
The Fourth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requires the district court to advise defendants who intend to plead guilty about the significance of supervised release.
Fifth Circuit
Villarreal v. City of Laredo
After rehearing the case en banc, the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant public officials were entitled to qualified immunity when they arrested a journalist for illegally soliciting information that had not yet been officially made public with the intent to obtain a benefit. Qualified immunity was appropriate because the law did not “obviously” violate the First Amendment.
Seventh Circuit
Erdman v. City of Madison
The Seventh Circuit held that Madison’s prerequisite test of physical abilities for firefighters does not violate the Title VII prohibition against gender discrimination.
Ninth Circuit
Martinez v. High
The Ninth Circuit held that an officer is liable under the state-created danger doctrine when the officer discloses a victim’s confidential report to a violent perpetrator in a manner that increases the risk of retaliation against the victim. However, the panel further held that, because this liability theory was not clearly established at the time of the action at issue, the particular defendant in this matter was entitled to qualified immunity.
Tenth Circuit
U.S. v. Kearn
The Tenth Circuit held that the criminal defendant was entitled to a sentence correction because his counsel provided deficient advice about the government’s plea offer, causing him to reject the offer. The panel explained that the offer would have resulted in a 14-year reduction in the ultimate sentence.
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.
