Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 74)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 74)
Appellate decisions from the week of May 13-17, 2024
“Storing tens of thousands of dollars in a shoebox is seldom a good idea. Dealing drugs illegally never is. Brian Dewayne Darden-Mosby did both, earning himself two federal convictions. What’s more, the government seized over a quarter million dollars from him. Mosby now wants his money back, but most of his arguments don’t cash out.”
Judge Thapar, United States v. Darden-Mosby
Decision Summaries
U.S. Supreme Court
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s statutory funding structure, which sourcing funds from the Federal Reserve System rather through than the standard annual appropriations process, is appropriate under the Appropriations Clause.
Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
Smith v. Spizzirri
By unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a district court lacks discretion to dismiss a lawsuit and it must instead issue a stay when the court finds that the suit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration.
Harrow v. Department of Defense
By unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 60-day appeal deadline for a federal employee subjected to an adverse personnel action by the Merit Systems Protection Board is not jurisdictional, and thus the appellate court may consider equitable tolling of the statutory deadline.
Fourth Circuit
Mahmoud v. McKnight
The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff parents were not entitled to a preliminary injunction to require their public-school board to provide notice and opportunity to opt out from their children’s exposure to certain books and related discussions due to the plaintiffs’ broad claims and the scant record before the panel.
Fifth Circuit
Martin v. LCMC Health Holdings
The Fifth Circuit held that a hospital does not act under the direction of the federal government when it maintains an online patient portal that utilizes tracking pixels. Thus, the panel determined that, as a rsult, the plaintiff’s state law privacy claims were not reviewable under federal question jurisdiction.
Sixth Circuit
Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Cardona
The Sixth Circuit held that nonprofit tax-exempt organization plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Department of Education’s adjustment to relieve student loan borrowers who qualify for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, though the plaintiffs attempted to claim that they were barred from realizing “the full statutory benefit” of employing those borrowers.
John Doe #1 v. Lee
The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and held that the Tennessee Sexual Offender Registration and Monitoring Act does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The panel further dismissed Governor Lee from the suit and modified the district court’s injunction against enforcing the registration law.
United States v. Darden-Mosby
The Sixth Circuit held that the defendant presented sufficient evidence to establish a plausible source for $20,220 of the $112,690 in cash found during a search of his home and seized as forfeiture during his conviction for drug-dealing offenses.
Eighth Circuit
United States v. McMillion
The Eighth Circuit held that the police did have reasonable suspicion to stop a defendant’s vehicle when he was seen with a firearm in a “high-crime area” at 4:40 a.m. Thus, the panel reversed the district court’s suppression of the illegal firearm recovered during the vehicle stop.
United Stated v. Willis
The Eighth Circuit held that the district court improperly revoked the defendant’s right to self-representation when it based its decision on the defendant’s repeated sovereign-citizen type arguments before his trial, rather than any kind of “serious and obstructionist misconduct.”
Eleventh Circuit
Lange v. Houston County, Georgia
The Eleventh Circuit held that a health insurance provider can be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for denying coverage for gender-affirming care to a transgender employee because the employee is transgender.
In re: Baycare Medical Group, Inc., et al
The Eleventh Circuit held that a medical provider is not required to establish that documents were created and maintained for the “sole purpose” of making reports to a patient safety organization in order to be protected from discovery under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005.
Federal Circuit
Creager Ireland v. United States
The Federal Circuit held that the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits are afforded to states, not individual citizens, and the Department of Labor is not required to provide benefits to citizens of states that have withdrawn from their agreements under the program.
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.
