Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 30)
Last Week in Federal Appeals (No. 30)
Appellate decisions from the week of January 24-28, 2022
“The government attempts to downplay these concerns by arguing that prosecutorial discretion and resource allocation can properly ensure that legitimate participants in Maine's medical marijuana market will not be subject to federal criminal prosecution [for minor violates of State law]. But the point is not that caregivers acting in good faith will be prosecuted for even tiny infractions of state law but that they can be prosecuted. The government's vague assurances in this case will likely be cold comfort to anyone facing fears that imperfect compliance with the [State medical marijuana laws] could lead to indictment and imprisonment.”
~Judge William Kayatta, United States v. Bilodaeu
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
Hughes v. Northwestern University
The Supreme Court unanimously held that ERISA plan fiduciaries’ investment decisions are subject to a context-specific review as to whether they prudently monitored their plan’s investment options and removed bad options. The Court explained that the Seventh Circuit erred by focusing instead on the range of options fiduciaries offer plan participants.
First Circuit
United States v. Bilodeau
The First Circuit—agreeing with the Ninth Circuit—agreed that a 2019 appropriations rider prohibits the DOJ from prosecuting those who comply with State medical marijuana laws. It also rejected the DOJ’s argument that strict compliance with State law was required. In this case, though, the defendant could be prosecuted because (even though he had State medical marijuana credentials) he was planning to sell the marijuana commercially to those no one thought had a legitimate medical need for the drug under State law.
U.S. Department of Justice v. Jonas
The First Circuit held that a state official must comply with a federal subpoena for prescription drug records from a State database. The panel rejected arguments that (1) the subpoena was really directed at the State, which is not a proper statutory target for such record demands, and (2) that the patient whose records were targeted had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records.
Fourth Circuit
United States v. Freeman
The en banc Fourth Circuit held, on direct appeal, that a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when her trial lawyer waived meritorious objections to a presentence investigation report. The court rejected the government’s request that it wait to pass judgment on counsel’s performance until the defendant challenged his conviction in habeas.
Seventh Circuit
Camelot Banquet Room v. Small Business Administration
The Seventh Circuit rejected a First Amendment challenge to the Paycheck Protection Act program filed by several strip clubs. The clubs claimed that Congress violated their right to freedom of speech by excluding them from the COVID-19 loan program. The panel held that Congress was not required to subsidize the clubs’ speech.
Eighth Circuit
Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds
The Eighth Circuit held that parents of children with disabilities were entitled to an injunction forbidding Iowa from enforcing a State law that prohibits mask mandates in schools. The panel held that there was a reasonable likelihood the parents would succeed on their Americans with Disabilities and Rehabilitation Act claims challenging the prohibition and claiming that mask mandates were a reasonable accommodation for kids with disabilities.
In the News
SCOTUSBlog has run two stories profiling rumored top contenders for the Supreme Court seat Justice Breyer will vacate at the end of term:
Judge Katanjii Brown Jackson of the D.C. Circuit; and
Justice Leondra Kruger of the California Supreme Court.
Other leading contenders include Judge Michelle Childs of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Sherrilyn Ifill (former head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund), and Melissa Murray (a law professor at NYU).
The Justices of the Supreme Court released tributes to Justice Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts added some levity to his, saying: “[Justice Breyer’s] pragmatism, encyclopedic knowledge, and varied government experience have enriched the Court’s deliberations. And his fanciful hypotheticals during oral argument have befuddled counsel and colleagues alike.”
Any opinions expressed here are my 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 me at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.
