The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Internet trolls, militant tactics, and big dicta energy.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.
- Plaintiffs: Amtrak has started including an arbitration requirement in the terms and conditions of every ticket it sells, in violation (say we) of the Petition Clause, Article III of the Constitution, and all that is good and holy. D.C. Circuit: What say you guys fight about all this once Amtrak actually tries to make you arbitrate something? Case dismissed.
- Do three stray Supreme Court comments have the requisite Big Dicta Energy to control the outcome of this challenge to bond procedures used to detain noncitizens during the pendency of removal proceedings? First Circuit (over a dissent): They do indeed, and they tell us that class relief is unavailable.
- Nice elder-care facility you have there. Be a shame if someone mixed up patient identifying information (including patient wrist bands, door name plates, and dietary requirement documents), altered medical records, damaged or hid medical equipment, and vandalized laundry equipment. Third Circuit: A reasonable jury could infer that union members—who went on strike the next day—were responsible for the vandalism, but the unions themselves can't be held liable without clear evidence that they were directly involved. Dissent: That same jury could find that the unions' encouragement of "greater and more militant" activity immediately before the sabotage meets this standard.
- Pound, Va. inmate tussles with two prison guards, leaving all three injured. Inmate (2015): Roll the video—it shows I was shackled on the floor while the officers injured each other. Prison officials: Nah. We'll just believe the guards' testimony and strip you of nine months of good-time credit. Fourth Circuit (2019): Inmates facing the loss of good-time credit have a right to the video. Fourth Circuit (2021) (over a dissent): But that doesn't apply retroactively, so the inmate is out of luck.
- Internet troll Chuck Johnson—who once stated that he "agree[d] with [Holocaust revisionist] David Cole about Auschwitz and the gas chambers not being real" and that he "do[es] not and never ha[s] believed the six million figure" of Jews killed in the Holocaust—sues HuffPost for libel over an article calling him a Holocaust denier. Truth is an absolute defense? Fifth Circuit: Don't even need to get that far. HuffPost is based in New York and incorporated in Delaware; can't sue them in Texas just because that's where you read the article. Dissent: HuffPost isn't found in Texas by accident; it actively courts Texas readers and runs Texas-specific advertising. That's enough for jurisdiction.
- "The Wegbreits' rambling brief spans 78 pages yet somehow develops only two coherent arguments remotely related to the tax court's decision. And those two arguments are baseless." Not a great start for the Wegbreits or their lawyer, the latter of whom must show cause to the Seventh Circuit for why he shouldn't be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal (after having been warned about this sort of thing before).
- Another life tip via the Seventh Circuit: If you are going to steal tens of millions of dollars from a family whose assets you manage, naming your kids after your victims might be seen as "aggravating." 200-month sentence affirmed.
- Relatives of workers who died after allegedly contracting COVID-19 at Waterloo, Iowa pork processing facility in March and April 2020 sue Tyson Foods in state court for fraudulent misrepresentation and gross negligence. Tyson: The feds encouraged us to keep the plant open to keep grocery store shelves stocked, so this case should be removed to federal court. Eighth Circuit: Nope, it goes in state court.
- Google Street View provides panoramic street-level pictures from across the world, which it obtained from special camera cars. Google: Whoops, our cars also took substantive info, like passwords, photos, and documents, transmitted over unencrypted Wi-Fi. Much litigation ensues. A class action covering 60 million people settles for $13 mil, with the money going to attorneys' fees, various costs, and an assortment of nonprofits that promise to use the money "to promote the protection of Internet privacy"—and not a penny to the people whose privacy was violated. Ninth Circuit: That's fine. Concurrence: It's time for us to reconsider our precedent okaying monetary awards to third parties instead of damages for class members.
- After a jury finds St. Petersburg, Fla. oncology practice knowingly billed Medicare improperly on 214 occasions, defrauding the feds of a total of $755.54, the district court orders the practice to pay $1.17 mil ($350k of which goes to the practice's billing manager, who blew the whistle). An unconstitutionally excessive fine? Eleventh Circuit: It might be a "very harsh" fine. But it's not excessive. Two-judge concurrence: It seems like our precedent on what counts as excessive is too deferential to Congress—"a bit like letting the driver set the speed limit."
- And in en banc news, the Tenth Circuit will not reconsider its decision that individuals born in American Samoa are not U.S. citizens. Judge Bacharach, dissenting: "We bear an obligation to interpret the geographic scope of the Citizenship Clause based on the text and its historical context. When we do, there is only one answer: The Territory of American Samoa lies within the United States."
To comply with Pasadena, Texas's minimum parking ordinance, Azael Sepulveda, who runs a one-man, by-appointment-only auto repair business, must add 23 parking spaces outside his shop. That's a prohibitively expensive and totally unnecessary burden on Azael, who has a reputation for honest and high-quality service (don't take our word for it) and a YouTube channel with over 73k subscribers. So this month, IJ and Azael joined forces to challenge the law under the Texas Constitution. Click here to learn more.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is there a typographical error in the penultimate item: "defrauding the feds of a total of $755.54"? Or was the case really only over $755.54?
The fact that this question needs to be asked says a lot.
According to the court file, the number is correct. What a ridiculous case.
A penalty almost 2000 times the amount of the offense is not excessive? It's still 1000 times for pure penalty, even after the 500 fold payout to the whistleblower.
Wasn't there a SCOTUS case about this fairly recently? I really don't see how this could be anything but excessive.
It's not excessive because most of the money is going to lawyers. The legal system is run by lawyers, for the benefit of lawyers.
Can you explain how "most of the money is going to lawyers?"
Frequently in settlements of class action suits, the attorneys fees end up being more than 50% of the aggregate settlement.
Which may br true, but has nothing to do with this case which was not a class ation case.
Sounds like a rounding error, or the practice pissed someone in the court off.
What I want to know is how you misbill for $3 in medicine. A bandaid would cost at least $20.
Good question.
Charging $23 for a $20 Band-Aid?
Like Jerry said, they were probably routinely rounding up, not down.
They performed a large number of very cheap lab tests at a lab location that due to an administrative error temporarily let its license lapse. Because it didn’t have the necessary license, it wasn’t legally authorized to bill Medicare at all and their bills were rejected. So they resubmitted the tests as having been performed at another location that did have a license. The false address was the basis of the fraud claim.
It's $5500 for each of the 214 claims (apparently the minimum) and triple damages. Absolutely whack. The entire line of reasoning they follow to sanction this might follow precedent but it's also fraught with issues. The fact that it is the minimum permitted by Congress doesn't mean that it can't be excessive a priori, Congress might set certain prices but that doesn't mean that it is what "society" would set, and the fact that the court didn't assess the maximum doesn't mean that it's not excessive. The last argument is mostly just a reformulation of the first, so I assume the judge felt the need to up his word count.
755.54 / 214 ~= $3.53 per separate line item.
That's some serious Dr. Evil scammery going on.
I wondered the same thing as Vandalia but the decision itself is clear - the jury found the amount to be seven hundred fifty-five dollars and fifty-four cents. That figure appears in the decision multiple times, including in the calculation of the penalty.
Good grief! Even having the same city name as a California city causes government idiocy.
By mixing up patient records, the union members deliberately sabotaged patient care. The fact that no one died is a thankful miracle, but one caused by luck.
At a minimum the people involved need to be stripped of their licenses, publicly shamed, and blacklisted from employment by all medical facilities in the country.
If there was justice, everyone involved would be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.
If there was justice, everyone involved would be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.
Attempted manslaughter and attempted homicide would be my recommendation.
Actual manslaughter if any patients died because of the resulting mess.
The Third Circuit has sanctioned appalling union "negotiation" tactics that Jimmy Hoffa would have found beyond the pale.
It’s possible to acknowledge both that what these union organizers did was criminal, and also that a lot of anti union management tactics are also beyond the pale. Which is probably the basis for the Third Circuit holdings you find objectionable.
The tactics of management aren't particularly relevant, as they were not the defendant. The two judges in this case (including the wife of former governor Ed Rendell) held all these actions by union members (the day before a strike) could not be attributed to the union. The improbability of that aside, this was still pre-trial, but these judges denied the plaintiffs the chance to prove their case in court.
And whatever management may have done, it could not possibly compare to literally putting the lives of elderly patients, who have nothing to do with the union's grievances, at risk.
Just to be clear, while I am pro-union, I am also pro-basic decency and putting the lives of elderly patients at risk is completely unacceptable. I would jail, probably for a significant period of time, the people that did it. I'm not defending these tactics.
That said, over the years I've also seen some fairly vile tactics by management. I think the courts are to be forgiven by assuming that most of the time they're dealing with two bad actors and ruling accordingly.
Wouldn't the appropriate way to deal with two bad actors be to hold both responsible, rather than letting either one off the hook? Our legal system isn't supposed to be about leveling the scales in some cosmic sense, but about resolving specific causes of action.
Yes of course. Deal harshly with both bad actors. But that’s not what I’m talking about.
If you are an unsympathetic party because of your own bad deeds, expect to be treated unsympathetically. If I’ve been pitching rocks through my neighbor’s windows it doesn’t make it ok for someone else to pitch a rock through my window. But if someone does, how sympathetic will I come across when I complain about it?
"That said, over the years I've also seen some fairly vile tactics by management."
That is of absolutely no relevance unless you can come up with specific evidence of such tactics by the management of the specific care facility in this specific case.
Matthew, you’re misunderstanding my argument. I’m not saying tu quoque or both sides. Rather, I’m responding to the specific claim that the Third Circuit overlooks union abuses, and suggesting there may be more to that story.
Had a union firebomb my car back in the late 80's. I wasn't even part of the dispute. I just happened to be staying at the same hotel while working an unrelated job. My car was chosen because it was the nicest one. The firebomber was caught, but, the DA didn't press charges because it was a labor dispute in an election year. The Union paid off the Finance Company and told me tough luck. I tried to sue, but, couldn't find a lawyer to take the case. In some areas nothing a Union gets away with surprises me.
Did you try calling the FBI? I’ll be very surprised if firebombing isn’t a federal crime.
I think there was an actual violation, but nothing close to this serious. They let their license lapse due to an administrative error. It’s pretty clear that if they had applied for a new license on time, they would have gotten it straightforwardly. Nobody claimed there was any problem with the quality of the tests.
And they arguably needed to perform the tests without waiting for the livense. because their patients were needing time-critical treatments.
The correct thing to do was admit their error, accept the situation, and absorb the $750 loss once the initial claim got rejected. What they did instead to try to get the $750 was wrong and a fine was clearly appropriate. But a seven-figure fine seems excessive.
From IJ's website: "Earlier this year, Azael purchased his new shop on Shaver Street with the hope of expanding his business. In order to buy the new shop, he spent all of his savings and took out a loan with his house as collateral. But after he purchased the property, he learned the city required him to spend $40,000 to install a second parking lot, which will sit entirely empty and that he cannot afford."
It sounds like Azael should have done more due diligence before spending all of his savings on a property, as his situation arises from his failure to know the law at the time of his purchase.
I bet he could not have known that in advance. I have seen too many reports of ad hoc fees assessed for nonsense like this. I once inquired about splitting my own rural lot and the guy started dreaming up all sorts of fees I could pay == a new bridge (10 feet across, one lane road) and so on.
Perhaps. But why would he look into the possibility of adding an EXTRA parking lot? That is not reasonable and as such no sane person would think to look for such a rule.
Besides... it being a law does not mean that it is just, correct, or good law. Are you saying that correctness is derived from obedience rather than rational justice? It is his property. The gov can pound sand in a just world. If everyone simply complies to bad laws, the world becomes increasingly unjust. Someone has to fight it for it to go away.
Not far from the better known Pasadena, professor Donald Shoup wrote a book railing against excessive parking requirements. _The High Cost of Free Parking_ is worth a read if you're interested in urban planning or transportation. I don't endorse all his conclusions.
Fourth Circuit (2019): Inmates facing the loss of good-time credit have a right to the video. Fourth Circuit (2021) (over a dissent): But that doesn't apply retroactively, so the inmate is out of luck.
WTF? What do these judges think?
Questions for the constitutional scholars:
The guy is being deprived of nine months of liberty. Is he getting due process? Can the state simply withhold evidence?
And if it's all just legally hunky-dory, then why is our system so fucked up?
I don't agree with it, but this is a pretty common ruling when things are done "correctly" at the time.
"What do these judges think?"
In this specific case, I would be more inclined to ask: Do these judges think?
> What do these judges think?
If you're actually curious, there's a link to the opinion right there.
Plaintiffs: Amtrak has started including an arbitration requirement in the terms and conditions of every ticket it sells, in violation (say we) of the Petition Clause, Article III of the Constitution, and all that is good and holy. D.C. Circuit: What say you guys fight about all this once Amtrak actually tries to make you arbitrate something? Case dismissed.
Consumers are in a tough spot. If they were to buy a ticket and then file a lawsuit, they'd be forced to arbitrate and then told they shouldn't have bought a ticket if they don't like it. If they try to sue without buying a ticket, then they're told there's no standing because it's a hypothetical. I'm skeptical on the merits here, but it's kind of perverse there's no way for this to be heard unless the plaintiff chooses to buy a ticket and break his ankle "tripping" or something. I guess they'll have to go plaintiff shopping and find someone who wants to sue AmTrak organically.
More glories of our legal system.
If you don't like it, go to Russia.
(FWIW, I've lived there and I don't recommend it.)
Or go to Ukraine and wait a couple months.
Not really. You could sue in court. Naturally, Amtrak would move to dismiss because the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement. But you could reply that the arbitration agreement is illegal. The judge would make a decision, and if he ruled against you, you could appeal. And if you lose all your appeals, you can still make your case to the arbitrator.
The Holocaust denier is less of a "troll" and more of an "idiot."
In Eugene Volokh's world, victims of crazy, mentally ill, malicious cyberharassers who dox them, post their private text messages online in a blog to purposefully ruin their life to harass them, cause them psychological damage, and for no legitimate reason would have zero recourse in the legal system. Eugene, incorrectly, thinks that the words of a crazy psycho hell-bent on destroying someone else's life using the internet is "valuable" and "previous" freedom of speech that trumps the victim's right to defend him/herself from such attacks and to live free from harassment and stalking.
I think it is very likely that Eugene is paid by Big Tech and Google to put forth this view that almost all speech, regardless of malice, intent, relevance, privacy, etc... is somehow "valuable." That's a blatant lie, and does nothing but make society more dangerous and victims more vulnerable to real cyberabuse. Volokh's view is almost identical to that of Google, where anything on the internet, no matter how private or malicious, should NOT be taken down. The real reason behind this impetus is any laws requiring harmful content to be taken down (and would help victims restore their lives) is COSTLY to Google and Big Tech. So Big Tech, not surprisingly, is putting PROFITS before SAFETY, and Eugene is definitely in on this, most likely. Many of his papers are funded by Google, and his "Free Speech" arguments completely ignore the critical distinction between the Internet (where anyone can post regardless of intent or malice) and traditional mediums where society actually required some sort of checks on both accuracy, relevance, and privacy before being approved. On the internet, Eugene conveniently ignores the reality that any psycho or mentally ill malicious individual can wreck havoc on helpless victims' lives simply out of spite or even worse, "fun", and victims are helpless against these types of attacks. Very dishonest and disingenuous on Eugene Volokh's part not even acknowledging this reality. The "marketplace of ideas" should not be a "free for all" where people can be attacked by malicious individuals, there needs to be some privacy-related balance against this trend.
In my world, I'm blocking you because your problems are your own, but you can't stop posting about how other people should be solving them.
See, we can agree on things. Has he ever posted anything substantive, besides spamming this comment across multiple threads?
Happy New Year!
Out with the old and in with the .... very old and very tiresome.
Who's next to copy and paste same ole same ole?
The defender of the right to toot a plastic flute? Haven't heard from him in a while.
Reviewing my Holden_C file of these recent screeds against Eugene Volokh, they do hammer much the same points but are not literally cut'n'paste. They are edited somewhat.
"The lawyers get millions, and the victims get a coupon for free fries at their next visit."
Looks like my go-to sarcasm wasn't sarcasterrific enuf!
Class action lawsuit brought by issue-oriented attorneys and non-profits acting on behalf of a class of millions of affected people won a settlement of millions of dollars against the oppressor of the class.
The settlement money went to the attorneys and the nonprofits as a reward and a fund to be used to promote their causes.
The affected class got nada.
The district court recognizes that's class-action lawsuit business as usual but says it is time that the court should reconsider the precedent okaying monetary awards to third parties instead of damages paid to class members.
Does the circuit court expect crusading attorneys and non-profits to do class action suits pro bono? To divide the settlement money among the members of the affected class when the class probably did nothing to bring and win the case and may be were not aware of being members of a class for whom the attorneys and non-profits so nobly and selflessly crusaded? Why should the class members be rewarded for their sloth and ignorance?
Because the fiction is that the 'crusading' attorneys are bringing the suits on behalf of the class members. That fiction requires that winning the suit have at least SOME benefit for the class members, no?
In reality, of course, most class action lawsuits have nothing at all to do with the class members, who may not feel particularly wronged, have any idea the suit is being brought, and just notice that they occasionally get worthless coupons or de minimus checks in the mail occasionally. They're just a way for attorneys to commit extortion using the courts.
I'm pretty sure the last paragraph was sarcasm, Brett.
If your going to claim to represent "me" as a class member then basic agency law says that an agreement should be in "my" best interest, not yours. My best interest is money going to me.
And no one said every cent goes to class members and none to attorneys. The problem is the class members are getting nothing. That means the attorneys have failed in their basic duty to represent the the people the claim to represent.
Class action law is a special legislative intent to punish. It is based on incentivizing plaintiff attorneys to initiate these lawsuits as private attorneys general to deter wrongdoing. The class membership is merely a figurehead. As someone else here has said the class members don't much give a hoot one way or the other. I'd say they may get a pleasurable chuckle out of seeing the defendant figuratively spanked and run off to McDonald's for a Big Mac with their tiny check. I got one of those checks once and that's what I did.
Before you think it's some eternally unjust behavior by the US government, it's a lot more complicated."
I can imagine the good rev now:
1. Beaks off about the racist US government.
2. Listens to podcast.
3. Beaks off about the racist, sexist Samoans and how their betters are gonna tell them how they should live in their own territory.
Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, "American Samoa culture plays role in US citizenship ruling", Associated Press, 16 Jun 2021.
"... The ruling notes that American Samoa government leaders and others opposed the lawsuit because they are concerned automatic citizenship could disrupt cultural traditions, such as communal land ownership and social structures organized around large, extended families led by matai, those with hereditary chieftain titles. ..."
The suits were brought by American Samoans living in the U.S. who wanted U.S. citizenship, not by American Samoans living in American Samoa who wanted U.S. citizenship.
Similarly a lot, maybe the majority, of Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico prefer Commonwealth status over Statehood.
Considering that land ownership is restricted to people are are more than half Samoan, it would also disrupt their political system.
It’s worth pointing out that a the qui tam suit involving the $750 lab billing is very similar to Texas’ SB8.
I think it would have been entirely reasonable and appropriate for the Supreme Court to say that the kind of suit SB8 authorizes is a de facto qui tam suit, and that the real plaintiff in interest in SB8 suits is the State of Texas, with the nominal private plaintiff merely receiving a bounty for acting on the state’s behalf.
The Supreme Court of Texas might still reach this conclusion.