Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 72)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 72)
Appellate decisions from the week of March 25, 2024
“Though habeas relief is hard to get, courts must give petitioners a fair shot. Khamal Fooks never got that. In his habeas petition, he alleges that his lawyer had assured him that he would be eligible for parole. But that assurance was false. His allegations, if true, would show that his lawyer’s advice was ineffective. Yet neither the state nor the federal district court gave him a chance to prove those allegations.”
~Judge Bibas, Fooks v. Superintendent
Decision Summaries
Second Circuit
Permanent Mission of the Republic of Seirra Leone to the UN v. Harvey
The Second Circuit held that a foreign mission to the United Nations was not immune from liability under the Foreign Soveriegn Immunities Act where faulty rennovations at the Mission’s headquarters damaged a neighbor’s home. The panel held that this conduct fell within the Act’s “commercial activities” exception because private parties can and do rennovate buildings.
Third Circuit
Pennsylvania State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Secretary
The Third Circuit rejected a challenge to a Pennsylvania voting law which requires absentee voters to print a date on their return envelope when voting by mail. The panel explained that the “materiality provision” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits denial of the right to vote because of an “error or omission” on paperwork requisite to voiting, does not apply to rules governing how to vote, but instead only governs rules concerning voting registration (i.e., who can vote).
Fooks v. Superintendent
The Third Circuit reversed a district court opinion denying a petition for habeas corpus, concluding that a defendant was entitled to an opportunity to show that his lawyer incorrectly assured him that he would be eligible for parole if he pleaded guilty. The panel remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the issue.
Fourth Circuit
Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association
The Fourth Circuit held that obtaining 501(c)(3) non-profit status does not count as recieving federal financial assistance for Title IX purposes. Thus, the panel explained, that status could not serve as the basis for bringing at Title IX claim for sexual harassment.
Fifth Circuit
United States v. Texas
The Fifth Circuit refused to stay a Texas law prohibiting non-citizens from illegally entering or reeintering the State and authorizing State judges to enter removal orders, concluding that it likely was not preempted by federal immigration law.
Sixth Circuit
Schwebke v. United Wholesale Mortgage LLC
The Sixth Circuit held that, by participating in extensive discovery, a corporate defendant waived its right to compel arbitration as to an employee’s disability discrimination claim. The panel then affirmed the district court’s decision refusing to compel arbitration.
Upshaw v. Stephenson
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision granting federal habeas relief to a Michigan prisoner. The panel agreed with the district court’s decision granting relief on an ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsel’s failure to investigate alibi claims and prosecutors’ use of peremptory challenges to strike Black jurors.
Seventh Circuit
United States v. Osadzinski
The Seventh Circuit rejected a criminal defendant’s First Amendment challenge to his conviction for materially supporting a terrorist organization. The defendant created a computer program that allowed ISIS to rapidly duplicate propaganda videos and stay ahead of government attempts to twart ISIS’s media campaign.
Ninth Circuit
Zenoff v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.
The Ninth Circuit rejected an effort to revive a securities lawsuit alleging that Sorrento Therapeutics made materially false or misleading representations in a press release and Fox News article when it claimed it might have discovered a cure for COVID-19.
Eleventh Circuit
Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections
The Eleventh Circuit revived a transgender guard’s TitleII employment discrimination claim against a State prison facility. The panel rejected the district court’s conclusion that the harassment alleged in the complaint—including disobeying and undermining the guard’s authority, calling him “ma’am” on prison-wide radio communications, and calling him “baby girl”—was not severe or pervasive enough to give rise to a harassment claim.
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.
