Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 67)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 67)
Appellate decisions from the week of February 12, 2024
“Rutgers had to decide in real time, on a changing landscape of executive pronouncements and medical judgments, how to sustain its educational mission while protecting the safety of its student body. Students had to choose whether to vaccinate and resume in-person or to decline and proceed masked (for exempt students) or remotely or elsewhere (for non-exempt students). None of these options were ideal, and no doubt they created hardship for many. What we judge today, however, is not the wisdom of any party’s choice but whether the Complaint stated a claim. It did not.”
Judge Krause, Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
The Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 need not prove that his employer took unfavorable employement action against him with retaliatory intent. Instead, he need only show that his protected activity was a “factor” in the unfavorable action.
Department of Agricuture v. Kirtz
The Supreme Court held that a consumer can sue a federal agency for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Reform Act. The Court explained that, becuase the Act defines a “person” liable to suit to include “any” government agnency, the plaintiff could sue the Department of Agriculture for incorrectly reporting to TransUnion that the plaintiff’s account was past due.
Third Circuit
Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers
The Third Circuit upheld a district court’s decision dismissing various constitutional and statutory claims challenging Rutgers University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The panel found that the policy was subject to only rational basis review, because it did not infringe on any fundamental right, and that the University’s policy passed muster.
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association v. Attorney General New Jersey
The Third Circuit held that a 2004 federal statute, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, provides certain retired law enforcement officers with a federal statutory right to carry a concealed weapon. The panel further held that this law preempts a contrary New Jersey statute.
Fourth Circuit
Mohamed v. Bank of America, N.A.
The Fourth Circuit held that pandemic relief unemployment benefits funds, administered by Bank of America, were in a “government benefit account” under the terms of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. It was thus subject to that statute’s protections.
United States v. Zelaya-Veliz
The Fourth Circuit found that the Fourth Amendment does apply to a user’s messages and data stored with Facebook, but rejected the defendants’ argument that the warrants in this case were not sufficiently particularized or supported by probable cause. That said, the panel was troubled by the lack of a time limit on at least one warrant.
Timms v. U.S. Attorney General
The Fourth Circuit held that, after serving a prison sentence for crimes committed after being civilly committed as a sextually committed person, a defendant should be returned to civil commitment. The conviction during commitment does not terminate the commitment; nor does the government has to recertify the defendant as sexually dangerous after the new criminal sentence is complete.
Seventh Circuit
Coatney v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC
The Seventh Circuit held that, under Illinois law, Ancestry.com could not force children whose parents had signed them up for the site’s services to arbitrate their privacy claims.
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.
