Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 75)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 75)
Appellate decisions from the week of June 24, 2024
“The dissent ends by quoting Chevron: ‘ Judges are not experts in the field’ That depends, of course, on what the ‘field’ is. If it is legal interpretation, that has been, ‘emphatically,’ ‘the province and duty of the judicial department’ for at least 221 years.”
~Chief Justice Roberts, for the majority in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
“Those were the days, when we knew what we are not. When we knew that as between courts and agencies, Congress would usually think agencies the better choice to resolve the ambiguities and fill the gaps in regulatory statutes. Because agencies are “experts in the field.” And because they are part of a political branch, with a claim to making interstitial policy. And because Congress has charged them, not us, with administering the statutes containing the open questions.”
~ Justice Kagan, dissenting in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo
Dear Readers: Our apologies for the gap in opinion coverage. Between the press of other matters and some much needed vacation for Antonia, we’ve fallen a bit behind. But we’re back up and running now and plan to keep a regular publication schedule going forward. As for some of the Supreme Court opinions we have missed in the interim, we will do our best to put together a term-in-review post in the coming weeks.
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
Snyder v. United States
The Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that a federal bribery statute did not apply to “gratuities” rewarding public officials for past actions. The Court distinguished such cases from “bribes” which are paid before an official act in order to induce the official to act.
Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.
Murthy v. Missouri
The Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that the plaintiffs in this case did not have standing to challenge alleged contacts between the Biden Administration and social media companies related to those companies’ COVID-19 misinformation moderation policies.
Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.
SEC v. Jarkesy
The Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial in civil cases applies to actions brought by the SEC seeking civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud. The SEC therefore can no longer bring such actions before an Administrative Law Judge in an agency proceeding.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a bankruptcy court to, as part of a bankruptcy settlement, to discharge claims against a third-party who is not the debtor without the consent of any potential claimants. Thus, the bankruptcy court could not approve a term releasing the Sackler family from liability related to their involvement with the opioid crisis as part of Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement.
Justice Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. Overruling Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, the Court further held that courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented.
Fischer v. United States
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that to prosecute a January 6 rioter under a federal statute allowing criminal prosecution of anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” the government must prove that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding or attempted to do so.
Justices Barrett, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
The Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, held that enforcing laws regulating camping on public property against homeless populations does not amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.
Third Circuit
United States v. Davis
The Third Circuit held that the government violated its promise, in a plea agreement, to recommend a sentence at the “low end” of a sentencing guidelines range. The panel explained that the government did so by emphasizing the heinous nature of the defendant’s crimes and the harm suffered by the victims, essentially suggesting that a higher sentence would be appropriate.
United States v. D’Ambrosio
The Third Circuit held that a sentencing judge has the authority to modify an arguably unlawful condition of supervised release in response to a motion under 18 U.S.C. Section 3583(e)(2).
Fifth Circuit
National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC
The Fifth Circuit held that, in abruptly rescinding a 2020 rule regulating businesses that provide proxy voting advice to institutional investors, the SEC’s explanation was arbitrary and capricious. The panel therefore vacated the rule recission and remanded the matter to the agency.
Eighth Circuit
Cole v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
The Eighth Circuit reinstated a religious discrimination claim brought by an employee alleging that her employer failed to reasonably accommodate her religious objections to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The employee claimed, in part, that the mandate subjected her to “restrictions that visibly differentiated her from vaccinated employees.”
Ninth Circuit
United States v. Hernandez
The Ninth Circuit held that, to withdraw a guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2) based on newly discovered information a defendant must show both that (1) he did not subjectively know the “new” information that is the basis for the motion and (2) that a reasonable person could not have known or anticipated it at the time of the plea.
Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
The Ninth Circuit held that 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 prohibits employers, in this case Facebook, from discriminating against U.S. Citizens in hiring, reversing a district court’s contrary ruling dismissing a former employee’s lawsuit against the company. The employee alleged that Facebook’s parent company, Meta, refused to hire him because it prefers to hire noncitizens with H1B visas that it can pay lower wages.
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.
