A summary of recent federal court decisions

Enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a group at the Institute for Justice.

New Certificate Petition! Friends, the government has broad latitude to use eminent domain to acquire private land for public uses, such as parks. But if the park is just a Excuse What are the officers actually doing is harassing people they don’t like or forcing them to leave town? What then? Well, most courts have held that this is unconstitutional, but earlier this year the Second Circuit disagreed, holding that as long as an officer is willing to lie about the reason for seizing someone’s property, all is well. We ask the Supreme Court to resolve this disagreement. Click here to learn more.

1. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many Iraqi and Afghan nationals helped the United States—often at great personal risk. To help them, federal law grants “special immigrant” status to foreigners who meet certain criteria. Frustrated by the slow pace with which the federal government was processing applications, Congress passed a law ordering them to speed up the process, and local courts barred them from doing so. Fed: But it’s really hard! DC Circuit: We’re sure this is the case. But you still have to do it.
2. A trade association representing medical device manufacturers is suing the Librarian of Congress, alleging that a new rule that exempts its software from DMCA anti-circumvention protections violates the APA. Librarian: I am the librarian of the library congress, rather than an executive agency. I have sovereign immunity and the APA does not apply. DC Circuit (to objection): No you don’t, yes it does.
3. If public school students have their First Amendment rights, they can wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War (in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court said they did), do middle school students in Massachusetts have the right to wear a shirt that says “Only Two Genders” (or the same shirt but with the word “censorship” plastered on it that says “Only Two Genders” indivual”)? Or could the school ban the shirt under the hate speech provisions of its dress code? 1st Circuit: School may ban shirt. under Tinkerpublic schools can restrict student speech if it “seriously interferes with[s]” In the classroom—the school “reasonably predicted” that the shirt would cause havoc.
4. Should a Philadelphia man sentenced for armed robbery and kidnapping get a “dangerous weapon” penalty enhancement for using a fake gun? 3rd Circuit: Yes. The meaning of “dangerous weapon” as used in federal sentencing guidelines is unclear. We therefore turn to the guidance’s commentary, which reasonably defines “dangerous weapons” to include fake guns. Objection: “A dangerous weapon must be both dangerous and a weapon. Fake guns are neither.”
5. Sometimes when people are evicted, they leave their stuff behind in their previous homes. Baltimore was tired of paying to haul away abandoned properties that landlords dumped on the street, so it passed an ordinance that transfers ownership of the property to the landlord upon eviction. Frustrated deportees sued. 4th Circuit: So could they. The city’s shoddy notification requirements are unconstitutional.
6. A San Antonio police officer knocked on the door of a home and quickly opened fire into the living room while looking for the attacker. No one in the living room matched the suspect’s description, but one of them suffered fatal injuries. Is immunity adequate? 5th Circuit (unpublished): If things happened the way plaintiff said, it was clearly excessive force.
7. Allegation: A federal inmate suffered multiple fractures to his face while playing softball; his face was so visibly dented that surgeons said he needed immediate surgery. However, prison officials balked and the window for surgery closed, leaving him permanently disfigured. Can he sue the officials for violating the Eighth Amendment by deliberately indifference to his serious medical needs? District Court: Sorry, only the estate of a prisoner who died of untreated asthma can bring such a claim. 5th Circuit (unpublished): Vacant. bivens Remedies should be narrowly construed. but not That Narrowly.
8. Allegation: A woman prayed to God and God told her not to get the COVID-19 vaccine. She then interviewed for a management position at a home health care company in Michigan. Things were going well until she mentioned not getting vaccinated for religious reasons. The interview ended abruptly and no offer was received. 6th Circuit: This is sufficient to charge a Title VII violation.
9. A man entering the United States after traveling abroad was stopped by customs agents at O’Hare International Airport. They then unlocked and searched the man’s phone and found child pornography. The man, now charged with producing child pornography, filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the unauthorized, suspicionless search of his phone violated his 4A rights. 7th Circuit: Motion denied. A “brief manual search” of a traveler’s phone constitutes a routine border search and does not require a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
10. Confidential informant had sex with Harrison County, Missouri, Sheriff “in an attempt to gain advantage for her brother and family who were in legal trouble.” The relationship lasted six months, during which time he supplied drugs; when she ended things, he arrested her. (He later committed suicide after (sealed) criminal charges were filed against him.) 8th Circuit (unpublished): She pointed to nothing in the record that showed coercion and therefore did not violate her rights against his estate and the county Make a claim for the integrity of the body.
11. Congressman Steve King’s (R-IA) campaign committee tweeted a photo of “Success Kid” with the message “FUND OUR MEME!!!” But Success Kid’s mother registered the copyright to the viral photo in 2012. The jury ultimately found the Commission responsible for the infringement and awarded statutory damages of at least $750. The commission appealed damages and the denial of attorney’s fees. 8th Circuit: This is not fair use, and fees apply only to the prevailing party, not you.
12. 9th Circuit: “This [qualified immunity] What is unusual about this case is that other officers on the scene contradicted key facts claimed by the officer who used deadly force.
13. Real Fact: The Ninth Circuit is so large that it hears cases “en banc” before the chief justice and 10 randomly selected active judges sit on an “en banc panel,” meaning that the “en banc” court sometimes even Not including any of the judges on the original jury. Regardless, the en banc opinion unanimously held that the complaint in the challenge to California’s AB 5 did not raise an equal protection claim, reversing the previous panel opinion, which also unanimously held that it did raise an equal protection claim.
14. The Los Angeles school district is requiring its staff to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Without exception! Unless, after being sued, it would issue a “clarification memorandum” indicating that there was, in fact, a test exception. Until the lawsuit is dismissed, and then no more. Then he was sued again. Two years later, on appeal and at oral argument, district attorneys vigorously defended the mandate. But the debate didn’t go well. Therefore, the board revoked the authorization 12 days later. Is voluntary cessation a meaningless exception? The Ninth Circuit thinks so. Additionally, a preliminary injunction was issued on the merits. Agree No. 1: Maybe sovereign immunity doesn’t apply either. Agree 2: This is a bit like a case of denial of medical treatment. Objection: Can’t we just assume that the government doesn’t love us and is simply reacting to rapidly changing facts on the ground?
15. Several members of Kappa Kappa Gamma at the University of Wyoming are suing the sorority for breach of fiduciary duty by interpreting “women” to include “individuals who identify as women.” The district court dismissed the case without prejudice and provided instructions on how to amend the complaint to make it viable. Instead, they appealed the dismissal. 10th Circuit (unpublished): A nonfinal decision cannot be appealed; this is a nonfinal decision.
16. Kansas Officials: We need to conduct unannounced, warrantless inspections of your dog training facilities to make sure you are following our rules, such as feeding your dogs once a day. Dog Trainer: I’m pretty sure the people who pay me to train their dogs make sure that I feed their dogs properly. 10th Circuit: How does a “surprise” inspection find out if you feed your dog once a day? It only happens once a day. The case was not dismissed!
17. An employee in Muskogee County, Oklahoma, claims he was fired in retaliation for speaking out on an issue of public concern without actually saying why he was fired. County: Wow, wow, wow. We are not retaliating against you for exercising your constitutional rights. We retaliate against you because we idea You exercised your constitutional rights. 10th Circuit: There is enough confusion in the law about how to merely assess perceived words rather than actual Agreed: I don’t think this perceived/actual statement matters here, we should just consider what the employer thinks he said.

New case! Santa Clara County, Calif., officials fined Michael and Kellie Ballard, the owners of a historic vineyard, more than $100,000 for allowing a longtime Employees and their families live in trailers on the 60-acre property. Although the trailer is safe, well maintained and not visible from surrounding properties, county code prohibits it. So the Ballards spent years and tens of thousands of dollars seeking permits to build code-compliant homes for their employees. But at the same time, they did the decent and honorable thing and refused the county’s request to make the family homeless. Click here to learn more.