The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Goat standing, galling doctrines, and forfeited arguments.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.
Bianca King of Lakeway, Texas, is a single mother with two young children. Until recently, she was able to raise her 2- and 4-year-old kids while making a living running a small daycare out of her home. But on February 9, city officials—citing concerns of a group of nearby golfers (including former mayor Joe Bain) that they could hear and see children playing in her backyard—shut her down. This week, she joined forces with the Institute for Justice to file a lawsuit in state court challenging Lakeway's near total ban on running a home business. Learn more here.
- Man in the Judiciary Square, D.C. Metro station falls into gap between waist-high parapet and station wall and ultimately dies of his injuries; his body is found four days later by a Metro rider. His family sues, claiming that had they done their job, Metro employees would have discovered him in time to save him. Metro: But he was drunk, meaning he was contributorily negligent, meaning we can't be held liable. District court: Correct. D.C. Circuit: Decidedly not. Under D.C. law (which controls here), the Metro's status as a common carrier means it can't avail itself of the contributory-negligence doctrine. To trial the case must go.
- In this First Circuit opinion about the First Step Act, an unusually subdued Judge Selya lobs only a few modest vocabulary grenados: "immurement," for example, "paint the lily" (no, not "gild" it), and "monolithic." (By the by, "monolithic" (as you probably know) derives from the Greek for "single stone"—hence the Village of Monolithos on the Island of Rhodes, named for the rock on which perches the Knights of St. John's castle.)
- Firearm-offense sentences can be enhanced if you're an "unlawful user" of drugs at the time of your crime. And, says the First Circuit, "evidence of long-time regular use interrupted by periods of abstention" doesn't fit the bill. So weed/gun enthusiast is entitled to a resentencing without the unlawful-user enhancement.
- Twenty-six-year-old Honduran woman seeking asylum credibly alleges that when she lived in her native country, a gang member connected to a political opposition party physically and sexually abused her and her mother, stalked and raped her sister, and murdered her uncle. But, says the Fourth Circuit (over a dissent), she didn't produce copies of her fingerprints in advance of her hearing before an immigration judge, so back to Honduras she goes.
- The Fifth Circuit denies qualified immunity and explains its reasoning with a page of charts. Judge Oldham, dissenting, argues that case law requiring charts cannot be clearly established.
- An auto-antonym is a word with two opposite meanings, such as "cleave" or "sanction." Also, goat and G.O.A.T. are not the same thing in athletics. The point is: don't confuse prudential standing with Article III standing. If you don't have Article III standing, you're done in federal court. But if you merely lack prudential standing, you might be ok. (So, per the Fifth Circuit, a mother's federal suit for wrongful death can go forward if she amends to add the survivor with the right to sue under Louisiana law.)
- In an unsigned order, the Fifth Circuit holds that United Airlines employees who have received religious exemptions from the company's vaccination requirement would suffer irreparable harm if the policy is not preliminarily enjoined. And Judge Jerry Smith (dissenting) Is. Not. Having It.
- Under Kentucky's certificate-of-need regime, new home health agencies cannot open unless they prove their services are "needed," which they must do in an administrative litigation against their would-be competitors. But do billion-dollar incumbents really need to be protected from entrepreneurs who might provide better services? Would allowing a startup to provide Nepali-language care to Louisville's surprisingly sizable refugee population really make health care worse? Alas, it's rational to think so, holds the Sixth Circuit. Yes, it's "galling" to the plaintiffs. Yes, there's "considerable evidence" of "pernicious effects." And, yes, the entire rational-basis test might be an "overcorrection." But you'd have to take that up with the Supreme Court. [This is an IJ case.]
- Sartre said that Hell is "other people," but the original French is better translated as "the Department of Labor's Benefits Review Board." And thus the Sisyphean saga of one Kentucky widow's struggle to get black-lung benefits on behalf of her late coal-miner husband. After 17 years and four trips from an administrative judge to the board, the widow receives zilch. She then appeals the fourth appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Held: "poor customer service," but no legal error. Because, hey, there was one issue that turned out to matter, and she didn't raise it during the first appeal ten years ago.
- If an ordinary litigant forfeits a non-jurisdictional argument, a court generally won't consider it. If you're the government, the court will raise the argument for you. So it is in this case out of the Sixth Circuit, in which the court holds that a criminal defendant had no Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search of a car in which he was a passenger, and that it was perfectly all right for the trial court to raise that argument on its own.
- Plaintiff files his claims one day after the statute of limitations runs out. BUT! The statute of limitations expired on a federal holiday, which means he filed on time as a matter of law. BUT! The plaintiff's lawyer didn't make that argument in the district court, even when the district court all but asked him to. BUT! The Eighth Circuit, invoking the age-old doctrine of "oh, for Pete's sake," says we should cut the guy a break. Case un-dismissed.
- The thorny intellectual puzzle of what constitutes a "violent felony" for purposes of federal law has generated opinions wrestling with conundrums fit for a philosophy seminar. And it has generated this Eighth Circuit opinion, which finds that "attempted second degree murder" just super-duper obviously counts as "violent."
- At least eight times, plaintiff provided her employer with a doctor's note requesting a different accommodation for an asserted disability. Each time, her employer accommodated her. The ninth time, when she neither submitted a doctor's note nor asked for a specific accommodation, her employer did not accommodate her. How did her Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the employer fare in the Eighth Circuit? The answer may surprise you. (Unless you read those first three sentences. Then you can pretty much guess.)
- Wherein the plaintiff loses his property because his house was on fire but also loses his case because the Eighth Circuit finds that, when he generated a list of the personal property he claims was destroyed, his pants were on fire.
- If a property owner owes $15,000 in back taxes, can the government sell the property for $40,000 at auction and just pocket the profits? Apparently so, says this Eighth Circuit panel.
- After suffering financial ruin while speculating on the rice market, Joshua Abraham Norton of San Francisco rechristened himself Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico. When the beloved eccentric died in 1880, upwards of 10,000 people lined the street to pay him homage at his funeral. Somewhat less charming is Mark Rogers, the self-proclaimed Emperor of North America who in 1980 committed a triple murder and was arrested while hanging onto the luggage rack of a moving station wagon. Ninth Circuit: Nevertheless, he deserved a lawyer in his capital murder trial who was more than four months out from passing the bar.
- In which the Ninth Circuit reminds us that Batson—much like his father—is rarely any help to criminals.
- Champion Petfoods manufactures dog food that it advertises as "Biologically Appropriate," "Trusted Everywhere," and containing "Ingredients We Love [From] People We Trust." Tenth Circuit: None of which can serve as the basis for a consumer class action.
- "Generally, issues that are not raised in a party's brief on appeal are considered abandoned." Bet you can't guess what happens next in this en banc ruling from the Eleventh Circuit (over a dissent), in which the government is trying to get evidence admitted against a criminal defendant.
- Perhaps investors should have guessed that a combination of a new cryptocurrency and multi-level marketing was, in fact, a big old Ponzi scheme. But, per the Eleventh Circuit, the Ponzi schemers can't escape liability by arguing that their online ads were targeted to the world at large, and not particular purchasers.
- And in amicus brief news, IJ is asking the Third Circuit to allow a Temple University physics professor's case against the federal gov't to proceed. Falsely accused by an FBI agent of being a Chinese spy, plaintiff's life was turned upside down for years. The brief argues that the district court was wrong to dismiss the case under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, as gov't officials do not have the "discretion to violate the Constitution," and that the district court was wrong to expand qualified immunity's "clearly established" test into this new context.
Calling all Southern law students! Join us for an immersive and practical day of learning and connect with like-minded peers and industry experts. We are excited to offer an opportunity for law students to learn about practicing constitutional law from a public interest perspective during our upcoming Legal Intensive at UNC's Friday Center on Saturday, March 26. The experts at IJ will lead interactive sessions throughout the day that are aimed at helping students learn and practice public interest law strategies, such as identifying constitutional litigation targets, framing cases, and advocating in the court of public opinion. Register by March 4 using this link: ij.org/students/ – space is limited so secure your spot soon!
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
The Metro made a mistake by asking employees to look for fallen customers. The basis for liability is the combination of (1) common carriers have a duty to help passengers they know to be in distress, and (2) they had a policy of looking for bodies from time to time.
I rode the DC subway one round trip and did not see any fallen bodies, hobos, or other signs of poverty like you might see in New York or Boston. Not even a rat. I was probably in the higher class part of the system, Arlington to L'Enfant Plaza.
It's a pretty outrageous suit. Families gotta blame someone other than their loved one or self, I guess.
While that is the higher class part of the system (not saying much), bodies, hobos, and other signs of poverty are rare to non-existent on the DC system. The closest I've ever seen was a grifter who tried to get money from people on a car by giving a speech.
"Mark Rogers"
Tried 40 years ago! The lawyer is likely retired by now.
Glancing at the decision, one of his many petitions was filed in 2002 and not decided until 2011!
Justice delayed etc.
This was already brought up in the open thread, but that unpublished 5th Circuit opinion might be the most shameful judicial opinion I've read in a while.
Judge Jerry Smith dissented writing the following:
If I ever wrote an opinion authorizing preliminary injunctive relief for plaintiffs without a cause of action, without a likelihood of success on the merits (for two reasons), and devoid of irreparable injury, despite the text, policy, and history of the relevant statute, despite the balance of equities and the public interest, and despite decades of contrary precedent from this circuit and the Supreme Court, all while inventing and distorting facts to
suit my incoherent reasoning, “I would hide my head in a bag.”
...and then he how he really feels. And ... well, he's right.
A really terrible 'decision.' I like that it was a Reagan judge to call them out on it so forcefully.
This one is weird. The state trades the property the debt is for in exchange for cancelling the debt in entirety, without relationship to the value of the property? According to the court, if the numbers were reversed - $40,000 debt, $15,000 property - the state would be unable to pursue any further collections.
I wonder if it actually holds up in practice?
It seems strange to me, but appears to be in accord with the MN statute.
The plaintiff, Tyler, seems to have missed several chances to avoid the problem, not that that makes the outcome entirely reasonable.
The still doesn't answer whether the exchange is itself a taking if the FMV of the property exceeds the tax liability.
To me the question of whether it is a "taking" is not a critical point, though I can see why it matters in dealing with the legalities here.
It's an unjust outcome, IMO. The government ought to be entitled to recover the unpaid taxes, plus any legal/administrative/maintenance costs associated with the foreclosure, but the rest should go to the (former) homeowner.
If you ask me, I'd say it's not a taking, because it wasn't for a "public purpose." They didn't want the property in order to build a fire station on it.
It seems pretty just to me. She blew off her property taxes in the first place. Then, when she literally had years to get right with her tax debts, she blew off all those notices and warnings too. Oh, and it's not her primary residence either, so (1) presumably she continued to collect rental income on it during all those years she neglected her taxes—else why not just sell the place and realize the equity? and (2) it's not like she's now living on the streets.
I wish this blog had an edit function. What I wanted to add is that, when you don't find sympathy from either Colloton or Kelly, who are some of the most reactionary and liberal, respectively, judges in service, it's a clear sign your arguments are truly garbage.
That makes the seizure and sale to pay her debts just. How does it make taking money that wasn't owed just, rather than theft?
Just because they passed a statute saying, "Ha, ha, we can do this"?
Just for your trivia collection: I was going through property tax records a few years ago in Montana and noticed instances where Joe Blow owned the land, but the taxes were being paid by Acme Corp. I asked the clerk and she said the law was that you could look for properties with unpaid taxes and sign up to pay them. If you did it for three years you owned the property for the taxes paid. The owner got nothing. If the owner paid up before the deadline, your payments were refunded, so not much downside risk. There were companies that made a business of looking for places with unpaid taxes. I guess you had to be quick, because the first company to notice got dibs on paying taxes for the property.
It seemed pretty outrageous. IIUC it has been changed to a system where the owner loses the land eventually, but does get FMV less taxes out of it.
The profit margin would be variable, and hence could not be proportional to the crime, if it's to be interpreted as punishment.
I would think that should be in there somewhere, to distinguish it from simple seizure with no compensation.
I could see how it can be considered a taking depending on how broadly you define "public purpose." The property was seized in lieu of unpaid taxes, and clearly those tax dollars go toward public purposes
What confuses me about it, is that the court says the debt would be settled regardless of the actual value of the property. I can easily see the government trying to take more money than they should, but settling for taking less? It seems unlikely to me, which means yeah, this would be blatantly unjust. However, if there are regularly cases where the debt is settled for less than the value owed, then it becomes a lot less so.
Unfortunately, a quick search didn't turn up any articles about cases where the balance went in the debtor's favor.
I think if the debt is specifically associated with the land, like property taxes, municipal water bills, and the like, then the owner can walk away with no liability beyond losing the property. But I'm not sure under what circumstances the new owner takes on the unpaid debt and when it is wiped clean.
Actually I think it does and maybe should work that way in many places.
For example, think about some old red-brick building that used to be an independent, family owned department store. The city core decays and people no longer shop downtown, the family goes broke, and no one is ever going to reopen a store there.
The family sees they can't pay taxes next year, so they proactively go to the city and say they want to renounce title to the property. Or donate it to the city.
Are you suggesting the city should say no, you may not give up title, we will keep taxing this white elephant like it's still the crown jewel of a vibrant downtown, and you will keep paying, and if you try to start a new life we'll go after that to pay taxes on this, and your children will automatically inherit it and can't renounce it either.
The reasonable thing to do is let them give up the title.
I mean, I get your point, but for that scenario to actually happen would kind of require that they operated this department store for an extended period of time without ever incorporating.
Also, the Eleventh Circuit took a case EN BANC that was basically ... WAIVER?
Ugh.
"If an ordinary litigant forfeits a non-jurisdictional argument, a court generally won't consider it. If you're the government, the court will raise the argument for you. "
Wow, the court actually admitted to being part of the government...
That Batson line was pretty good.
Pretty misleading summary of the black lung case in that it omits the participation of the husband's former employer—the mining company—that was fighting the benefits claim pretty much every step of the way.
Ninth Circuit murder habeas case dissent: "Other signs in the home reflected the Strodes’ belief in their right to keep and bear arms in self-defense."
That seems like a fairly irrelevant and gratuitous detail considering what the case was about.
I consistently think that 'Law being a judicated', should be added to the "sausage & laws being made" list. A lot of the stuff in this thread is truly frightening every week. I can't not look.