MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Root canals, contraband dogs, and a marijuana petition.

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.

Last year, an Akron, Ohio entrepreneur welcomed a group of homeless people to set up tents in the back lot of his commercial property after the city forced them off public land. The encampment has since evolved into a tight-knit community of 44 people helping one another get back on their feet. But the city is using the zoning code to shut it down, forcing people back to the streets. Read about IJ's latest case in The New York Times.

  • A criminal statute asking whether a whole category of activity constitutes "a crime of violence" may be unconstitutionally vague, says the First Circuit, but that does not mean a statute is too vague if it asks whether your specific conduct in a specific case was "a crime of violence"—particularly when your conduct involved firearms, pipe bombs, and a nine-month standoff with federal authorities.
  • Does the Due Process Clause entitle a Russian national who's been in immigration detention for over a year to a new bond hearing? (He says he's not dangerous; rather, the criminal charges he faces in Russia are retaliation for his opposition to the gov't.) Maybe in some case, says the Third Circuit, but not in his.
  • When Texas officials remove a child from home due to abuse or neglect, the child first enters a temporary custody program where officials try to resolve the problems at home or place the child with a relative or adoptive family. If officials are unable to find a permanent placement, the child enters a different program where the state's attention to the child diminishes drastically; caseworkers have enormous caseloads, short tenures; case file management is haphazard. Fifth Circuit: Much, but not all, of the challenged system violates due process; the district court's injunction must be substantially narrowed. Judge Higginbotham (concurring in part and dissenting in part): Children are "shuttled throughout a system where rape, abuse, psychotropic medication and instability are the norm." The injunction should be entirely upheld.
  • Man pleads guilty to various meth-related crimes; does not object to his proposed sentence. Uh oh! The judge's written judgment contains conditions that weren't mentioned at sentencing, including requiring the defendant to surrender himself for deportation after serving his time. Fifth Circuit: You can't spring things like that on people. (Bonus: Footnote 5 features an Amazon review of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual.)
  • Man serves 17 years in prison for sexual assault—between 1988 and 2004—before DNA evidence exonerates him. (See his page on the National Registry of Exonerations for more.) He sues in 2006 for false imprisonment, among other things. But when did Texas' two-year statute of limitations start running: in 1988 or in 2004? "Every day behind bars is irreplaceable," says the Fifth Circuit, "with the final day as wrongful as the first." His suit should not have been dismissed.
  • Endodontist—a dentist who specializes in root canals—challenges Ohio regulations that prohibit specialists from also offering general dentistry services. After the Sixth Circuit (in 2016) reverses a decision dismissing the case, the dental board rescinds the regulations. Is the case moot? Yup, says the Sixth Circuit (in 2018). We don't think the dental board will go back to its bad behavior. And since the board gave up before you could get a court order against it, no attorney's fees for you! (We discussed the 2016 decision on the podcast.)
  • Ohio man assaults dancer, gets kicked out of multiple strip clubs, drives drunk, kills another motorist. The deceased's family sues the final club the man patronized. The club's insurance policy covers negligence but has an exclusion for liquor liability, and the insurer refuses to defend the suit or attend a hearing. Ohio court: The bar was negligent for reasons independent of serving liquor. District court: So the insurer has a duty to defend. Sixth Circuit: That is what you get for not showing up to court. Affirmed.
  • Everyone agrees Clare County, Mich. officer violated the Fourth Amendment by lingering, for 90 minutes, in and around the curtilage of man's house to give him a random breathalyzer test. (Such tests are condition of his probation. He eventually blows zeros.) Sixth Circuit: Qualified immunity means "even actions that violate the Constitution do not lead to liability," and our own cases were unclear whether this was allowed at that time. Dissent: Our cases conflicted with Supreme Court precedent at the time, so not unclear at all.
  • "Rip-roaring drunk" commercial pilot shows up to work but is arrested by authorities in the midst of his pre-flight preparations. Can he be convicted of "operating" the airplane, even though it never moved? Two-thirds of this Sixth Circuit panel says yes.
  • Can Detroit police officers escape liability for shooting three pet dogs by arguing that the dogs were unlicensed and therefore "contraband"? No, says the Sixth Circuit, in a decision that somehow really actually exists.
  • Illinois power company worker, known for packing heat, gets into arguments with supervisor. Company searches his car (with consent), finds gun, fires him for violating no-gun policy. Arbitrator: Reinstate him. Illinois law lets people keep guns in cars on private property (unless there's clear signage otherwise), which trumps the company's policy. Seventh Circuit: Yeah, give him his job back. Do you even know how hard it is to overturn an arbitration award?
  • Wisconsin law requires bussing private school students, but only one private school per religious denomination per geographic area qualifies. Which violates our rights, says a second Catholic school. Seventh Circuit (over a dissent): It would, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied that statute to bussing to secular schools affiliated with one organization as well. So there's no Free Exercise problem; it's bussing for the first Catholic school, the first Montessori school, the first French International school. And the school district didn't entangle itself with religion in figuring out y'all are Catholic. They can believe you when you write "traditional Roman Catholic School" on your website.
  • The Ninth Circuit (over a dissent) holds that district courts should more permissively allow discovery when a defendant claims that the government engaged in unconstitutional selective enforcement by subjecting him to a reverse stash house sting (a longstanding scheme in which confidential informants lure suspects into "robbing" a drug stash house that does not exist). Come for the majority's discussion of burdens of proof, stay for the concurring opinion's blistering criticism of the entire "tawdry and disreputable tactic."
  • Federal law places a bunch of restrictions on the sale and manufacture of misleadingly named firearm "silencers." Kansas law says that none of those restrictions apply in Kansas. Tenth Circuit: Nice try, Kansas. Reliance on Kansas law might mitigate someone's sentence—as it did here—but it can't change the fact of their guilt. (Also, the National Firearms Act is constitutional).
  • PROTIP: When filing petitions in federal court, don't attach marijuana as an exhibit. The Federal Circuit will narc you out to the U.S. Marshals. Moreover, your theory of how this creates federal subject matter jurisdiction to hear your case is "the type of argument that you might figure out while high," says Patently-O.

Louisville, Ky. officials are risking the wrath of a federal judge. Earlier this year, the city rescinded an anticompetitive ban on food trucks operating within 150 feet of restaurants that sell similar food as part of a consent decree to settle a lawsuit brought by mobile food vendors. But this month, new protectionist measures are back on the city council's agenda; the proposed rules would, among other things, require vendors to relocate after 10 minutes in one spot. Which "does nothing to help consumers and the public," says IJ Attorney Arif Panju. "It's intended to destroy the viability of mobile vending in Louisville in order to serve the private, financial interests of politically connected restaurateurs." The Courier-Journal has the story.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • MatthewSlyfield||


    Can Detroit police officers escape liability for shooting three pet dogs by arguing that the dogs were unlicensed and therefore "contraband"? No, says the Sixth Circuit, in a decision that somehow really actually exists.

    I was wondering if I'd imagined that. :)

  • ||

    "Wisconsin law requires bussing private school students, but only one private school per religious denomination per geographic area qualifies. Which violates our rights, says a second Catholic school. Seventh Circuit (over a dissent): It would, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied that statute to bussing to secular schools affiliated with one organization as well. So there's no Free Exercise problem; it's bussing for the first Catholic school, the first Montessori school, the first French International school. And the school district didn't entangle itself with religion in figuring out y'all are Catholic. They can believe you when you write "traditional Roman Catholic School" on your website."

    Ridiculous.

    "Federal law places a bunch of restrictions on the sale and manufacture of misleadingly named firearm "silencers." Kansas law says that none of those restrictions apply in Kansas. Tenth Circuit: Nice try, Kansas. Reliance on Kansas law might mitigate someone's sentence—as it did here—but it can't change the fact of their guilt. (Also, the National Firearms Act is constitutional)."

    The "scrutiny" they applied is the ridiculous dissent from Heller. In any case, these nullification laws are stupid, unless they're willing to use force. Don't nullify a federal law inside a state unless you're willing to have the state police/guard take control of all federal buildings and courthouses, and to start shooting at federal law enforcement. Otherwise, you're just bloviating.

  • James Pollock||

    "Otherwise, you're just bloviating."

    Or "sending a message to Washington" if you're sympathetic.

  • ||

    No reason to waste time "sending messages." The best messages come in the form of 5.56 rounds

  • James Pollock||

    Pity you didn't get the message, then.

  • ||

    Your posts suck.

  • mad_kalak||

    Hasn't every effort at nullification, except for the Civil War, been bloviating?

  • ||

    Pretty much.

  • Eddy||

    What do you think various states are doing to the federal marijuana statutes?

  • mad_kalak||

    MJ state laws aren't really nullification, as they involved a federal *wink, wink* and *nudge, nudge* that it was okay.

  • nonzenze||

    As I recall that didn't end terribly well either . . .

  • DjDiverDan||

    I'm extremely pleased to note that two of the Fifth Circuit opinions, one reversing the BIA's removal order for a conviction of a drug crime that involved a substance which was NOT a Schedule 1 substance at the time of the criminal conduct based upon the rule against retroactivity, and the second allowing a claim for wrongful imprisonment to go forward based upon a "continuing tort" finding, were both written by Trump appointee Don Willett. Willett is one of those Judges who simply does not fit the "arch-conservative" label that the anti-Trumpers try to attach to every Trump appointment.

  • ||

    The anti-Trumpers hate any judge who will not rule that the 14th Amendment protects a right to kill fetuses and have gay anal sex to completion (see Scott Weiner's law in California).

  • James Pollock||

    Very few fetuses have gay anal sex, but if they did, it would be the tenth amendment that protected it, not the fourteenth.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Very few fetuses have gay anal sex,

    Visiting West Virginia or Alabama might change your perspective.

  • nonzenze||

    Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with Trump's short-list but I was (secretly) rooted for Don.

  • Longtobefree||

    Qualified immunity means "even actions that violate the Constitution do not lead to liability,"

    Whiskey
    Tango
    Foxtrot.

    welcome to the revolution.

  • James Pollock||

    Welcome to the knowledge that "immunity" means "immunity".

  • bernard11||

    And "qualified" means nothing at all.

  • JonFrum||

    "Wisconsin law requires bussing private school students ..."

    Yes, I know that you'll find this spelling in the dictionary, but this particular usage is the kind of case that begs for the distinction between bussing and busing. And if both are accetable, why not do the right thing and keep your dirty mouth off of kids? Just because they attend private schools, that doesn't give a green light to your vile lusts.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Huh?

  • Toranth||

    Bus
    vs
    Buss

  • Krayt||

    "Don't worry, I shan't kiss you." Montgomery to Patton upon arriving after Patton in Palermo.

    "Pity. I shaved extra close today in preparation for being bussed by you."

  • Intelligent Mr Toad||

    Speaking of Kentucky, I've often wondered: do people who live in Kentucky pronounce the name of the capital city "Loo-ee-ville", or "Loo-ville", or "Loo-uh-ville"?
    ..
    .
    .
    .
    ..
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Oh, I remember now: they pronounce it "Frankfort".

  • Beldar||

    At the top of the sua sponte order signed by the Clerk of the Federal Circuit in the Schirripa case, in which Schirripa attached samples of cannabinoids to his "confidential petition for rehearing":

    NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

    Future litigant, considering whether to attach samples to his briefing:

    Well, okay then! "Nonprecedential" means I can certainly hope for a different, better result! Let's try larger samples!
  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    A libertarian would appreciate Judge Roth's dissent in the Third Circuit detention case.

    A faux libertarian would appreciate the majority opinion from Judges Hardiman and Smith.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online