Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 71)
Appellate decisions from the weeks of March 11 and 18, 2024
“Today, the Court does not hedge its doubts in favor of liberty. Instead, it endorses the government’s implicit distribution theory and elevates it over the law’s ordinary and most natural meaning. It is a regrettable choice that requires us to abandon one principle of statutory interpretation after another. We must read words into the law; we must delete others. We must ignore Congress’s use of a construction that tends to avoid, not invite, questions about implicit distribution. We must dismiss Congress’s variations in usage as sloppy mistakes. . . . We must then read even more words yet into the law to manufacture a superfluity problem that does not exist. We must elevate unexpressed congressional purposes over statutory text. Finally, rather than resolve any reasonable doubt about statutory meaning in favor of the individual, we must prefer a more punitive theory the government only recently engineered. Today, the Court indulges each of these moves. All to what end? To deny some individuals a chance—just a chance—at relief from mandatory minimums and a sentence that fits them and their circumstances.”
Justice Gorsuch, Pulsifer v. United States (dissenting)
“Police may not fake facts to find probable cause. Officer Jared Frum applied for an arrest warrant. In his application, he allegedly turned a shaky witness statement into a confident identification and left out evidence that undermined the identification’s reliability. A judge then relied on this altered story to issue a warrant to arrest Kobe Pinkney.”
Judge Bibas, Pinkney v. Meadville
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
Pulsifer v. United States
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, that a federal prisoner is eligible for “safety valve” relief under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(f) only if he does not have more than four criminal history points, does not have a prior three-point offense, and does not have a prior two-point violent offense. The panel rejected the contrary view, advanced by several federal circuits, that the statute’s use of the word “and” meant that a defendant was eligible for relief unless all three things were true.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented.
Lindke v. Freed
The Supreme Court unnanimously held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on his social media page engages in state action under 18 U.S.C. Section 1983 only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf and (2) purported to exercise that authority via the relevant social media posts.
FBI v. Fikre
The Supreme Court unanimously held that a plaintiff’s claim that the government’s decision to include him on the “No Fly List” violated his constitutional rights was not moot. That is becasue, as the majority explains, the government failed to demonstrate that it would not re-list plaintiff again after removing him from the “No Fly List” in 2016.
Wilkinson v. Garland
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that an immigration judge’s determination on the plaintiff’s application for cancellation of removal is a reviewable mixed question of law and facts. Thus, the Court explained, an appellate court must apply its own view when called upon to “assess whether an IJ correctly applied the statutory standard to a given set of facts.”
Justice Jackson concurred in the judgment.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
Second Circuit
United States v. Oliveras
The Second Circuit held that, when imposing a condition of supervised release subjecting a defendant to suspsicionless searches by a probation officer, the district court was required to make an individualized determination that (1) the condition is necessary in a particular case, and (2) involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary.
Third Circuit
Pinkney v. Meadville
The Third Circuit held that a police officer violated a defendant’s clearly established rights by “fak[ing] facts to find probable cause” and “turn[ing] a shaky witness statement into a confident identification” and leaving out evidence that undermined the witness’s reliability.
Zuch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
The Third Circuit held that the IRS was not permitted to deprive the Tax Court of jurisdiction over a challenged tax liability by taking the taxpayer’s tax refunds and applying them to that liability. The panel stated that to hold otherwise would offend the relevant statute, common law, and mootness principles.
Fifth Circuit
Deanda v. Becerra
The Fifth Circuit held that a federal law requiring clinics recieiving federal Title X grant funds to distribute contraceptives to serve adolescents does not preempt a Texas law giving parents the right to grant or refuse consent to their teenager’s decision to obtain contraception.
Konan v. USPS
The Fifth Circuit held that the Federal Tort Claims Act postal-matter exception does not shield the USPS from liability for intentional failures to deliver mail. Thus, the panel allowed the plaintiff to bring her claim for damages against the USPS for refusing to deliver her mail for two years.
Sixth Circuit
Savel v. MetroHealth System
The Sixth Circuit held that only two of the forty-six plaintiff employees had standing to bring claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for religious discrimination where they were the only two employees to resign after the defendant employer implemented a vaccine mandate without any religious exemptions, but before the defendant employer reneged on the policy.
Seventh Circuit
United States v. Mitrovich
The Seventh Circuit held that a defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated when the government could not provide him with information on software Australian and New Zealand-based law enforcement used to identify his computer and tie it to child pornography charges. The panel explained that neither Rule 16 nor the Constitution required the government “to produce documents held exclusively by foreign authorities.”
Eighth Circuit
Osseo Area Schools v. A.J.T.
The Eighth Circuit held the defendant school district denied the plaintiff student her free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act when it refused to accommodate her epilepsy condition by providing evening instruction.
Ninth Circuit
Smith v. Helzer
The Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to enjoin an Alaska law requiring independent political expenditure organizationa to disclose individual donors contributing more than $2,000 and include some disclosures on political advertisements themselves because the requirements not facially violate the First Amendmnet.
Tenth Circuit
Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections
The Tenth Circuit rejected a disgruntled employee’s claims that a diversity, equity, and inclusion program violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights and created a hostile work encironment. Along the way, however, the Court noted that “race-based training programs can create hostile workplaces when official policy is combined with ongoing stereotyping and explicit or implicit expectations of discriminatory treatment.”
United States v. Hay
The Tenth Circuit held that the constant video surveillance of a defendant’s home over several months is permitted under the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches because the video surveillance was limited to the exterior of the home. The panel rejected the contention that the potentially “limitless” nature of the surveillance made it unreasonable.
Eleventh Circuit
Sylvester v. Fulton County Jail
The Eleventh Circuit revived a civil suit against a police officer alleging that he violated a suspects rights by intentionally lying or recklessly misleading a judge to obtain an arrest warrant. The panel held that the warrant omitted material facts and that a jury could find that the omission was reckless or intentional.
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.
