Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 69)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 69)
Appellate decisions from the week of February 26, 2024
“Howard County’s process for allowing its young students to participate in selecting the student member does not prematurely enfranchise them; rather, it provides a real-life civics lesson about the democratic process aimed at preparing the schoolchildren for when they will qualify to vote in elections held in Maryland.”
Judge Quattlebaum, Kim v. Board of Education of Howard County
“In recent years, state and local governments have brought state-court lawsuits against energy companies, alleging they misrepresented and concealed information about their fossil fuel products in violation of state tort and consumer protection laws. The companies have sought—over and over and over—to remove the cases to federal court. By our count, that gambit has failed in at least ten cases already. The eleventh time is not the charm.”
Judge Heytens, Ann Arundel County v. BP PLC
Decision Summaries
Second Circuit
United States v. Johnson
The Second Circuit held that the government did not violate the Fourth Amendment when, after the defendant was convicted on another charge, it searched data collected from that information and recovered evidence related to child pornography. The panel noted that the material reviewed had been segregated from other data and identified as responsive to the search warrant in question.
Fourth Circuit
Kim v. Board of Education of Howard County
The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision rejecting a constitutional challenge to a system—involving voting by public school students with some school supervision—for electing a student member of the Howard County school board. The panel concluded that the student member is not “elected” in the constitutional sense for equal protection, One-Person-One-Vote purposes.
Anne Arundel County v. BP P.L.C.
The Fourth Circuit, following a number of its sister circuits, held that oil companies could not remove various claims brought by state and local governments to federal court. The lawsuits in question allege that the oil companies misrepresented or concealed information about their products in violation of state tort and consumer protection laws.
Ninth Circuit
Linthicum v. Wagner
The Ninth Circuit rejected a First Amendment claim brought by Oregon state legislators who were precluded from running for re-election because of excessive absences. The panel rejected the legislators’ argument that their actions were protected speech because they were intended to deny the majority a quorum to conduct business.
Tenth Circuit
Electric Clouds, Inc. v. FDA
The Tenth Circuit rejected a challenge brought by e-cigarette manufacturers after the FDA rejected their application for approval to sell e-liquid-containing products. The panel held that the FDA’s guidance did not mislead manufacturers into believing they would need long-term studies to support their applications and did not need to explicitly address the manufacturers’ proposed age restrictions on e-cigarette sales.
D.C. Circuit
United States v. Brock
The D.C. Circuit held that the “obstruction of justice” enhancement in the federal sentencing guidelines does not apply to an attempt to disrupt the certification of votes for President, vacating a January 6 rioter’s sentence and remanding for resentencing. The panel rejected the rioter’s other challenges to his conviction.
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.
