Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Defaming the police, self-serving affidavits, and drunk confessions.


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

New on the Bound By Oath podcast: Would you believe that public officials who PERJURE THEMSELVES on the witness stand are absolutely immune from Section 1983 claims for damages? It all started with a Ku Klux Klansman accused of a dognapping in Bloomington, Indiana in 1976 … .

And new on the Short Circuit podcast: Professor Fred Smith of Emory Law joins the panel and talks Younger abstention, and everyone scowls for dozens of minutes straight—until he gets to the part about how there's hope for the future.

  • After 14-year-old is locked in psych ward at Boston Children's Hospital, a hacker ("The Hacker Who Cared Too Much") takes out the hospital's internet capabilities for a few weeks in protest. First Circuit: The 246 days between the hacker's arrest and indictment do not run afoul of the Speedy Trial Act. His conviction and 10-year sentence stand.
  • After receiving a tip from the operator of a storage facility, Delaware police get a search warrant and find three kilos of marijuana, along with scales and packaging material. The marijuana's owner is charged under the federal "crack house" law, which prohibits renting or using property "for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using" drugs. Owner: I was only "storing" drugs there, and that's not listed. Third Circuit (en banc): Nice try, but your pattern of visits and the presence of scales and baggies makes it pretty clear you were "distributing." Your sentence was wrong, though, so we send it back down. Concurrence: The sentence was indeed wrong, and here's why the rule of lenity is the solution.
  • Twenty-eight-year-old Texas man dies of a seizure. Insurance company to widow: no life-insurance proceeds for you; we think your husband inaccurately said he wasn't a smoker when he applied for the policy. Widow sues and submits affidavits from herself and from her sister-in-law, stating that they never saw her husband smoke. District court: Those affidavits are "self-serving" and can't create a fact issue for trial. Fifth Circuit: Well, most testimony by parties is "self-serving" in one way or another, since the party wants to win their case. To trial the case must go.
  • Let's say you live in Texas and hire a Florida/Delaware home-security company to install an alarm system in your house. And it turns out the Texas-domiciled employee of that company has a penchant for spying on you (and hundreds of other customers) through the alarm system. First off, yikes. Second, can the federal courts hear the company's demand to compel arbitration in your resulting lawsuit—on the theory that the arbitration agreement is between non-diverse diverse parties (the company and you, the homeowner)—even though the creepy now-former employee shares your state of citizenship and is also a party to the suit? Fifth Circuit: Yes. (For his part, the employee was sentenced to 52 months' imprisonment.)
  • Man: I was inebriated when I confessed to Akron, Ohio murder. I shouldn't have been convicted based on that. Sixth Circuit: You weren't inebriated. And even if you were, drunk confessions don't violate due process (unless maybe the police forced you to get drunk).
  • Allegation: Redford Charter Township, Mich. work-release program supervisor sexually assaults female probationer. Can she sue the program's other supervisor, who connived with his colleague to separate her from the group, against policy, and told his colleague to "have a good time"? Sixth Circuit: Indeed she can. The substantive due process right to bodily integrity protects against sexual assault by state actors, as well as deliberate indifference to sexual assault, and this was clearly established. No qualified immunity.
  • The Brady Act requires a background check of someone making a gun purchase but makes an exception if the buyer has a qualifying state-issued permit. Some state permit systems qualify; some don't. ATF used to think Michigan's did, but then claimed the state got kind of sloppy. Dude with a Michigan permit tries to buy a gun and is denied. Dude brings APA claim, loses in district court. Sixth Circuit: Dude has a point.
  • Michigan prisoner asks for accommodation to allow him to properly practice the Ifa religion. Receiving no response, he asks again. And again. And ends up doing so five times over six years. Constructive denial? Sixth Circuit: Oh yes. Lawsuit can now proceed in district court, although watch out for qualified immunity.
  • Terminally ill prisoner sues hospital and doctors who contract with Illinois to provide prison healthcare, in this case cancer diagnosis and treatment. Claims both negligence and an Eighth Amendment violation. Jury finds for prisoner, including $10 mil in punitive damages (reduced to $7 mil by the trial judge). Wow, that's a lot! Does it hold up at the Seventh Circuit? No. Expert reports from another matter were either improperly introduced or aren't enough for a Monell claim. Negligence finding stands, but no punitive damages. Dissent: This is all about 12 pages in one of those reports.
  • Hospitals, just five days before the federal government's new rules for allocating donated kidneys are scheduled to go into effect: These rules are illegal, and we need a preliminary injunction! Eighth Circuit: You waited too long to sue. And you're wrong. But you at least should have been wrong earlier.
  • How consensual is a police encounter when the officer shines a spotlight through a driver's car window at 10:27 p.m., asks for her (and her passengers') identification, and asks, "What's going on? Run me through. Something's going on right now"? Eighth Circuit: Consensual enough to not implicate the Fourth Amendment. And in any event, driving into a school parking lot in the middle of the night and acting fidgety is suspicious enough to merit an investigatory stop.
  • Third parties in Montana that want to hold primary elections have to go through a byzantine process of collecting signatures from at least one-third of the state's legislative districts, and the number of signatures they need from those districts is indexed to the percentage of the total votes cast for the most recent successful gubernatorial candidate. The Montana Green Party challenges the requirement under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. Ninth Circuit: No First Amendment problem, but it does violate equal protection. (Ed.: For those interested in this issue, Richard Winger's Ballot Access News has long been the best online resource around.)
  • John Doe plaintiff from California, who previously pleaded guilty to mortgage fraud crimes, has a beef with the FBI and the DOJ: Even though he's served his time, the agencies' websites still have publicly available press releases that identify his role in the scheme. That, he alleges, violates the Privacy Act, the constitutional right to privacy, the Eighth Amendment's bar on cruel and unusual punishment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Ninth Circuit: It does none of those things—the first claim is untimely and the next three are meritless. Case dismissed.
  • WhatsApp and Facebook sue an Israeli company for sending malware through WhatsApp's server system to mobile devices. Company: Anything we did, we did on behalf of a foreign government customer, which means we're protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. Ninth Circuit: "The law governing this question has roots extending back to our earliest history as a nation, and it leads to a simple answer—no. Indeed, the title of the legal doctrine itself—foreign sovereign immunity—suggests the outcome."
  • The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust available administrative remedies before they may file a federal lawsuit. In this case—in which a prisoner alleges he was physically and sexually assaulted by guards—the Ninth Circuit reminds us that if prison officials don't response to prisoner grievances, then whatever else such a remedy may be, it is surely not "available." Dissent: But the guy filed a second grievance that talked about the first grievance, un-exhausting his previously exhausted grievance.
  • So it turns out that if police shoot and kill someone and a city council member calls it murder, the officers who shot and killed someone can sue that council member for defamation. It'll be up to a jury to decide whether calling someone who indisputably killed someone else a murderer is defamatory. So holds the Ninth Circuit in a case about the 2016 some-people-have-called-it-murder-but-we-are-making-no-definitive-statement-on-the-matter of Che Taylor at the hands of Seattle Police.
  • Salt Lake City officer stops bicyclist for riding without a red taillight, discovers he has outstanding warrant. The cyclist flees on foot and turns toward the officers and raises one arm. The officer shoots him dead. District Court: Cyclist was standing in a threatening posture and officer thought he had a knife. Qualified immunity. Tenth Circuit: That is way too much weight to give to three seconds of ambiguous body-cam footage, and the well-pled complaint says he was not armed. No qualified immunity.
  • Allegation: Woman spends five months in jail after Atlanta police lie about, among other things, drug identification tests that indicated they hadn't found cocaine inside a stress ball in her purse. (It was sand.) Eleventh Circuit: To a jury this must go. No qualified immunity. And the state-law defense of "official immunity" doesn't shield the officers either; a jury might think they acted with actual malice.
  • And in en banc news, the Sixth Circuit will reconsider its decision affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction in a case brought by a Catholic school and two parents with children enrolled at the school, challenging a state policy that requires everyone over the age of five to wear a mask in indoor public settings. One judge dissented from the original panel opinion, arguing that the case should be sent back for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.

Earlier this month, Maine's voters adopted an amendment to the state's constitution protecting the "natural, inherent and unalienable right to food" including saving and exchanging seeds and "the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce, and consume the food of their own choosing." Those pushing for the amendment's adoption wanted to protect the rights of people to go "against the grain" when it comes to what we eat and who we get it from. So now that it's explicitly in the constitution, what does that mean for laws that stymie, say, growing your own vegetables or raising your own chickens? Over at our own little corner of the blogosphere, IJ's Anthony Sanders discusses how the amendment might affect Mainers and what the state's courts may have to say about it. Click here to read more.

NEXT: Why Not Pseudonymous Litigation? Burdens on the Judicial Process

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I'm eager to see what Sanders has to say about the right to raise chickens.

  2. 28 year old with disclosed seizure history dies of seizure. Shocking!

    The smoking thing is just a smoke screen for a bad faith denial of coverage.

    1. >The smoking thing is just a smoke screen for a bad faith denial of coverage.

      Smoking *may* increase the risk of some forms of seizures.

      But whether it does or not, smoking increases risk. And if he were a smoker, then he was underpaying for his insurance, and it doesn't matter *why* he died, only that he lied when he obtained his quote.

      My real question would be what evidence does the insurance company have to accuse him of smoking? Is this something they routinely do to avoid paying, or did this guy have pictures of smoking on his facebook page?

      1. "did this guy have pictures of smoking on his facebook page?"

        Some, but not all, of his medical records described him as a smoker.

        " Is this something they routinely do to avoid paying,"


  3. The legal question is more important, which is that judges and lawyers need to stop using the phrase "self-serving." Duh. Of course it is; who tries to introduce testimony that helps the other side? But you're allowed to testify on your behalf in the modern world, so the fact that your testimony is self-serving does not speak to its admissibility.

    1. who tries to introduce testimony that helps the other side?

      Allstate, apparently!

      To start, the medical records Allstate received from Guzman prior to issuing the policy describe him as a nonsmoker. Allstate also issued Guzman a urine test, which was negative for the presence of nicotine. Furthermore, one of the three medical records from the year prior to his application—the time period described by Allstate’s underwriting guidelines—describes him as a former smoker. And the medical record from January 28, 2019—the day before Guzman’s death—alternatively describes him both as a “Current Every Day Smoker” and a “Never smoker.”

      Seems like that would be enough to preclude summary judgment on its own.

      1. "And the medical record from January 28, 2019—the day before Guzman’s death—alternatively describes him both as a “Current Every Day Smoker” and a “Never smoker.”"

        FWIW, my wife has long made a habit of getting copies of her records. From what we have seen, I would not assume that medical records are particularly accurate. I don't know what generated those descriptions - an interview, a blood test, or what, but we have seen I'd advise caution.

        (For one recent example, they called to schedule cataract surgery. This was a little surprising because my wife has retinal issues, not cataracts. Their explanation that whoever was doing their data entry just entered a few pages of stuff from another patient under my wife's name. If they hadn't wanted to schedule surgery, we would never have known.)

  4. I feel like we need a liberal hypocrisy version of the Short Circuit.

    -Man leading activist group, in one of America's largest cities, says there will be riots in the street, bloodshed, and violence if government restores policing. Mainstream media barely covers this apocalyptic prediction. Wonder why....? #BLM
    -Meanwhile, well funded, big corporate lawyers wage lawfare against some (literally) poor and destitute people who were on the politically incorrect side of people expressing various views in a place called Charlottesville in 2017. Despite lacking any financial ability to defend themselves against aggressive and potentially unconstitutional civil litigation, the media still manages to make hay out of the fact that one guy said something at one point in time about something, something white people.
    -And just a few hours away, in the seat of our federal government, there is a jail wing full of political prisoners being held without bail, one of which recently released a letter detailing the horrific conditions of their confinement. Bluster? Exaggeration? Truth? "Who cares!" is the response from our mainstream media. There are some people of color of hearing complaining that some Karen looked at them the wrong way in a grocery store!

    Till next week!

    1. It would help to add links for the next edition.

      1. That is the magic of the mainstream media blackout. No links!

        But yeah I get the point. Only one allowed per post and any time I've tried successive posts with links it gets marked as spam. So, unfortunately, until the proprietors of this blog make it a feature you are going to have to rely upon your mastery of internet searches to find the underlying sources.

        1. There are plenty of non-"mainstream" media they could link to, including podcasts of which Short Circuit itself is one.

          (The quotes are because I no longer consider that a mainstream view exists. When it did it was based on a majority of the public trusting certain reputable media sources. We no longer can, and that is unlikely ever to change back.)

          I recommend the podcast platforms Rumble, Locals, BitChute, and, with hundreds of channels each, and none of which shuts people up for political reasons as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube do.

    2. "Who cares!"

      No opportunity for elites to congratulate themselves for intersectional or environmental piety means no interest. If non-elites didn't want to endure "horrific conditions", they shouldn't have gotten so uppity as to set foot in the elites' exclusive capital city.

      Peaceful, unarmed protest is closed off to that half the population.

      1. And that half is conservatives. Because any time conservatives gather for a peaceful rally, FBI/Antifa agents provocateurs will hijack the event, changing its public appearance to be violent and/or racist while physically trapping the real conservatives so that they are forced to fight for their lives. This is what happened at Charlottesville, and it is what happened in DC on January 6. Then the bad guys add insult to injury by taking lots of political prisoners, calling the event an "insurrection," and conducting fraudulent "investigations" in which no one is allowed to mention the agents provocateurs, and the many hours of video and audio that FBI recorded are kept secret because it would prove they're lying.

        If these facts continue to hold true they may force us to conduct an actual insurrection simply to get our rights back.

  5. "It'll be up to a jury to decide whether calling someone who indisputably killed someone else a murderer is defamatory. "

    Almost as if there's more to the question of whether someone is a murderer than whether they killed someone. I admit it would make my murder trials a lot easier if all I had to prove was that they indisputably killed someone else, but we have those silly little rules on intent, self-defense, etc.

Please to post comments