Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 70)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 70)
Appellate decisions from the week of March 5, 2024
The State of Florida seeks to bar employers from holding mandatory meetings for their employees if those meetings endorse viewpoints the state finds offensive. But meetings on those same topics are allowed if speakers endorse viewpoints the state agrees with, or at least does not object to. . . Florida may be exactly right about the nature of the ideas it targets. Or it may not. Either way, the merits of these views will be decided in the clanging marketplace of ideas rather than a codebook or a courtroom. . . Intellectual and cultural tumult do not last forever, and our Constitution is unique in its commitment to letting the people, rather than the government, find the right equilibrium.
Judge Grant, Honeyfund.com Inc. v. Governor of Florida
“Courts rely on lawyers’ honesty; lawyers may not mislead them. But the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office did just that. . . So the District Court found misconduct, directed the Office to be more forthcoming in the future, and ordered District Attorney Larry Krasner to apologize. . .[T]hose mild sanctions were well within the court’s sound discretion.”
Judge Bibas, Wharton v. Superintendent Graterford SCI
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
Trump v. Anderson
The Supreme Court held that Congress, rather than the States, is responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment’s bar against federal candidates running for office after participating in an insurrection while holding an elected office. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s order to exclude former President Trump from the Republican primary ballot in the State.
Justices Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurred only in the judgment.
Second Circuit
Williams v. Binance
The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that their purchases of the foreign defendants’ crypto-asset “tokens” are subject to domestic securities laws because the parties became bound to the transactions in the United States, and therefore irrevocable liability attached in the United States.
United States v. Benjamin
The Second Circuit held that an explicit quid pro quo need not be expressly stated but may be inferred from the official’s and the payor’s words and actions in alleging federal funds bribery and honest services wire fraud. Thus, the panel held that the district court erred in dismissing an indictment against the defendant for these two crimes.
Third Circuit
Wharton v. Superintendent Graterford SCI
The Third Circuit held that the district court properly imposed sanctions on prosecutors who misrepresented the work they performed to support their concession to the plaintiff’s habeas corpus petition because sanctions may be based on objectively unreasonable conduct.
United States v. Cruz
The Third Circuit vacated and remanded a defendant’s sentence where prosecutors promised to support a certain offense level, later endorsed an extra enhancement, and then took no position on the enhancement without retracting its erroneous position.
Fifth Circuit
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
The Fifth Circuit vacated an injunction against a newly implemented standard in Texas requiring commercial pornographic websites to verify the age of their visitors because the measure is rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest. However, the panel affirmed the injunction against the requirement to display health warnings about the effects of the consumption of pornography as a violation of the plaintiffs’ free speech.
Seventh Circuit
Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District
The Seventh Circuit held that parents who harbor concerns about a school district’s administrative guidance regarding students with questions about their gender identity lack standing to bring a pre-enforcement facial attack against the guidance on potential due process and free exercise grounds.
Eighth Circuit
Noon v. Smedley
The Eighth Circuit held that the city officials were not entitle to qualified immunity against the police officers’ claims that they were terminated in violation of their First Amendment rights after they submitted grievances against the police chief. The panel stated that the plaintiffs’ rights were so clearly established at the time of the incident that a reasonably competent public official would have known terminating them for their speech was a constitutional violation.
Ninth Circuit
Peridot Tree, Inc. v. City of Sacramento
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s dormant Commerce Clause claim challenging the city’s requirement that individuals applying for permits to operate storefront marijuana dispensaries be residents. The panel held that abstention was not warranted when the only potential risk was applying constitutional protections to federally unlawful conduct.
Tenth Circuit
United States v. Ronquillo
The Tenth Circuit held that the detached garage in which the defendant was found and searched was within the curtilage of the defendant’s home, which the police were authorized to enter pursuant to a search warrant.
Eleventh Circuit
Honeyfund.Com Inc v. Florida
The Eleventh Circuit held that the state law barring employers from holding mandatory meetings for their employees if those meetings endorse viewpoints that the state finds offensive (specifically, diversity and inclusions trainings) is an unconstitutional regulation of speech based on viewpoint. The panel rejected the state’s contention that the governed actions were conduct, rather than speech.
D.C. Circuit
Doe v. Apple Inc.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims against five American technology companies for allegedly participating in “forced labor” by purchasing cobalt mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Though the plaintiffs, who represent former cobalt miners injured in mining accidents, established standing to bring their claims, the panel held that they failed to allege the companies’ “participation” where the companies purchased an unspecified amount of cobalt through the global supply chain.
Borochov v. Iran
The D.C. Circuit held that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims against the countries of Iran and Syria. The panel explained that Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction to hear personal-injury claims arising from “extrajudicial killings” committed or materially supported by state sponsors of terrorism, but, here, the plaintiffs were injured rather than killed.
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.
