The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Sidewalk chalk, invasive owls, and ostinato copyrights.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.
Sonia Ekemon recently became a widow, and she wants to support herself and her three children by braiding hair, a skill she first learned in a refugee camp in Benin. But that's illegal in Idaho, where she's lived since 2000, unless she spends upwards of $20,000 to attend beauty school where the curriculum is both irrelevant and antithetical to natural hair care. IJ Attorney Dan Alban has more on IJ's newest lawsuit in the Idaho Statesman.
At oral argument in the Supreme Court last week, the Solicitor General argued that the federal gov't takes the position that a Bivens remedy is available to victims of run-of-the-mill Fourth Amendment violations (like illegal searches and seizures and excessive force) by federal officers. Which was quite a surprise! Because the gov't has for years taken the opposite position in a pair of IJ cases now before the Court. Click here and here to read our supplemental briefs in support of certiorari.
- Like many other universities, American and George Washington moved instruction online and largely closed their campuses in response to COVID-19. Did the schools violate their contractual obligations or unjustly enrich themselves by then refusing to refund any portion of students' tuition and fees? The D.C. Circuit says some of the plaintiffs' claims should not have been dismissed.
- At least 40 pieces of art plundered by the Nazis from the collection of Baron Mór Lipót Herzog, "one of Europe's great private collections of art," are now in the possession of three museums and a university in Hungary. D.C. Circuit (2017): Herzog's descendants can seek compensation or recovery of the art in U.S. court. D.C. Circuit (2022): And they can seek the same from a new defendant, a Hungarian state-run asset management company, thanks to legislation (the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act) passed in 2016.
- The feds say it's not enough that the president has the power to prohibit the entry of certain aliens during the COVID-19 pandemic and to deport those who enter illegally—the executive simply must have the power to deport them to countries where they are likely to be tortured. D.C. Circuit: Not at all clear what that has to do with COVID-19, so we're going to enjoin you from doing that.
- Suffolk County, N.Y. prosecutors prosecute 10 Filipino nurses—and also their lawyer—for crimes related to "patient abandonment" after they left nursing homes jobs in protest of poor working conditions (on advice of the lawyer). Yikes! A state appeals court issues an "extraordinary" writ barring the prosecution. Turns out the prosecutors were doing a political favor for the nurse's employer, which had first complained without success to the police and to state nursing regulators (who investigated and found no wrongdoing). Second Circuit (over a dissent): The prosecutors are immune from suit.
- Student expelled from Yale for sexual assault sues his accuser for defamation over her testimony at the university's disciplinary hearing. (Separately, he was acquitted at a criminal trial.) Second Circuit: Ordinarily, witnesses in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings are entitled to absolute immunity from defamation claims, but after a look through Connecticut caselaw dating back to 1894, we're not sure if that includes non-government proceedings like Yale's. Question certified to the state supreme court.
- In response to police conduct during public protests in 2020, the state of New York and private plaintiffs bring six lawsuits—eventually consolidated—against the City of New York and various city officials. The Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., moves to intervene as of right. Second Circuit: And they must be allowed in; the PBA has an interest in the safety of front-line officers who may be affected by a ruling on the NYPD's allegedly unconstitutional policies.
- Younger abstention is a baroque doctrine about which entire podcasts have been recorded and under which state and local officials can try to wriggle out of federal-court lawsuits when those lawsuits would interfere with certain kinds of state-court cases. Supreme Court (2013): And the state-court cases that can permit such wriggling "extend[] . . . no further" than (a) criminal prosecutions; (b) civil-enforcement proceedings; and (c) civil proceedings uniquely in furtherance on the state courts' ability to perform their judicial functions. New Jersey AG: And subpoenas too, right? Subpoenas? We can wriggle out of federal lawsuits if we've issued state subpoenas, right? Right? Third Circuit: To paraphrase our Circuit's favorite son, the Supreme Court did not stutter. So no, Mr. Attorney General: No abstention.
- In 2018, South Carolina's governor issued an executive order barring abortion providers from receiving federally-provided, state-administered Medicaid funds for the non-abortion services they provide. Fourth Circuit (2019): Seems like that violates federal law. No enforcing the order while litigation proceeds below. Fourth Circuit (2022): No enforcing that order ever.
- Fifth Circuit: "Ann Sheperd, the owner of a home-health agency, lawyered up after being indicted for Medicare fraud. But there was a tiny problem: Unbeknownst to Sheperd, her pretrial lawyer—who represented her until days before trial—also represented one of the Government's star witnesses. Oops."
- In 2018, inmate at Louisiana state prison (now-deceased of unrelated causes) files suit alleging guards beat him up in retaliation for filing grievances; guards say they did nothing of the sort. The defendants release nine video clips of the incident with some time gaps in between. Can the inmate's estate get the rest of the video? Magistrate judge: No. District judge: Don't need to rule on that. You lose. Fifth Circuit: Actually, the district court needs to rule on that.
- Mississippi woman is accused of stealing laundry, and police handcuff her for eight minutes before security footage reveals her innocence. She sues for excessive force. Fifth Circuit: The video shows no such thing. No error for the district court to order her to pay $3.1k for wasting everyone's time.
- Around 11 p.m., pretrial detainee in Detroit jail loses consciousness, slides off bench, and lies facedown on the concrete floor for nearly four hours. He dies. Jail supervisor: Even though written jail policy is for a guard to physically enter the room he was in every 30 minutes to check on detainees, we just look at them through the glass and leave them be if it seems like they are sleeping. Sixth Circuit: Violating jail policy isn't the same thing as violating the Constitution.
- Sixth Circuit: It's clearly established that police can't smash an unresisting, unthreatening person's head into a soda machine, take her to ground, and kneel on her back. So Genesee Twp., Mich. officers who were summoned to perform a welfare check on a distraught woman and then allegedly did all those other things will have to convince a jury the woman was actually resisting or threatening. No qualified immunity.
- Eighth Circuit: It's clearly established that—after a foot chase during which a suspect visibly discarded a gun—police can't shoot the suspect as he is turning around with arms raised in surrender. So no qualified immunity for a Burlington, Iowa officer who shot and killed a man who was (allegedly) laying down in surrender—after a foot chase during which the officer (allegedly) saw him discard a gun.
- While man is being treated for gunshot wounds to the face and foot, St. Paul police enter his hospital room and take his bloody clothes. A Fourth Amendment violation? The Eighth Circuit says no, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a hospital room and so there's no need to suppress evidence that contributed to his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Did the repeating ostinatos in pop star Katy Perry's song "Dark Horse" rip off Christian hip-hop artists' earlier effort? You be the judge. And also the Ninth Circuit will be the judge: The district court committed no error in vacating a $2.8 mil jury verdict against Perry and granting judgment in her favor.
- Las Vegas police arrest activists who used chalk to write message critical of the police on sidewalks at protests. Ninth Circuit: A jury might think that was retaliation over the activists' protected speech, given that Las Vegas police have never arrested anyone else for chalking on public property. No qualified immunity.
- Can the feds kill a bunch of barred owls in the Pacific Northwest, where they are non-native but flourishing, to see if that does anything to help the endangered northern spotted owl, which is native to the region? Ninth Circuit (2018): Yes. Ninth Circuit (2022): Yes.
- And in en banc news, the Ninth Circuit will reconsider its decision that a March 2020 public health order requiring Ventura County, Calif. gun stores and firing ranges to close for 48 days (but not other kinds of businesses) to fight COVID-19 violated the Second Amendment. (Helpfully, the author of the original panel opinion also wrote a concurrence containing a draft en banc opinion finding no constitutional violation.)
Victory! This week, a federal judge ruled that the District of Columbia's restrictions on online teletherapy—which prevent our client, a Virginia-licensed therapist, from seeing patients in D.C. online—are subject to strict scrutiny. Click here to learn more. And also, victory! Last week, a Fulton County Superior Court judge ruled that a Georgia law requiring that women who teach other women how to breastfeed earn the equivalent of an advanced degree is unconstitutional and would harm minority and rural communities. Click here to learn more. And additionally, victory! Last week, a Harris County judge granted a temporary injunction that will allow a Pasadena, Tex. auto mechanic to open his shop without complying with an unnecessary and prohibitively expensive mandatory parking requirement. 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
"Second Circuit (over a dissent): The prosecutors are immune from suit."
Formal logic fully justidies an ass kicking as a remedy for the prosecutors wrong doing. Formal logic should be supreme in the law because it has more certainty than the laws of physics. The contrapositive of a true assertion is always true. If liability is a replacement for endless cycles of violent revenge, then immunity fully justified an ass kicking.
Without absolute immunity, presumably no decent prosecutors will take the job if obvious grotesque evil they do. This will only leave devious prosecutors who have no qualms doing evil taking the job where they risk prosecution.
Wait, what?
"Eighth Circuit: It's clearly established that—after a foot chase during which a suspect visibly discarded a gun—police can't shoot the suspect as he is turning around with arms raised in surrender. So no qualified immunity for a Burlington, Iowa officer who shot and killed a man who was (allegedly) laying down in surrender—after a foot chase during which the officer (allegedly) saw him discard a gun."
As expected, the "victim" was a black male. Why are these people incapable of behaving?
Because their training teaches them to be irresponsible when using their duty firearms?
Yes, it's all the fault of the cops. It's not the fault of the feral black males (let's not call them men) raised by their 35 year old grandmothers.
You complain about "cops" being mistreated as a class by mistreating blacks as a class. Well done.
This video should be played every year in assembly of schools in Democrat jurisdictions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
Looking at the decision and news accounts, it doesn't make any reference to Marquez Jones having any criminal history. He had some weed with him, and was exercising his right to bear arms. He made a mistake running, but that's no reason to shoot him.
I'll note note that Iowa just recently passed a Constitutional Carry law that became effective in 2021. For it too have any teeth this cop needs to have a serious example made of him, and there needs to be extensive retraining of police in Iowa.
Isn't it still a federal felony to possess a firearm while addicted to, or being a habitual user of, illegal drugs? And isn't marijuana still illegal at the federal level? Maybe the answer is that Jones expected to sell the marijuana instead, which probably does not help him in a legal sense. I'm not sure that, a priori, running would have an expected worse outcome than not running.
If the officer could see that Jones discarded his gun, that seems like a good reason to stop pursuit and especially to secure the gun. The only justifiable reason to shoot Jones would have been if there was a real concern that he was about to commit some serious crime against a person.
An unconstitutional prohibition.
Let's ask a larger abstract question. Should the protections of the Constitution apply to blacks in the first place? Did the states make a mistake with the 14th Amendment in 1868?
Use of the word, black, is inaccurate and racist. Use the word, Democrat, or diverse.
Most police shootings occur because the cops are poorly trained and scared shitless.
I think because police so rarely use their weapons we should have a rule that if a policeman uses his service revolver for any reason, then they can no longer carry a service weapon. Make them a meter maid, administrative officer, corrections officer, but they can't carry a gun anymore. Use your gun if you have to, but your career as a street cop is over.
VanDyke is about to be proved correct. I wonder precisely how accurate his predictions will be.
"Can the feds kill a bunch of barred owls in the Pacific Northwest, where they are non-native but flourishing, to see if that does anything to help the endangered northern spotted owl, which is native to the region? Ninth Circuit (2018): Yes. Ninth Circuit (2022): Yes."
If the barred owls presence is the result of natural migration, killing them is likely to prove futile.
It's clearly established that—after a foot chase during which a suspect visibly discarded a gun—police can't shoot the suspect as he is turning around with arms raised in surrender.
So a criminal who actually reads the case law just needs to have two guns. Toss one away, raise your arm to shoot with the other one in "surrender" and BLAM BLAM BLAM, jurisprudence just killed some cops. To the extent this is clearly established, the precedent clearly establishing it needs to be overturned.
Not to get all lawyery in a lawyer blog. But an "s" at the end of a noun pluralizes it. And in this instance such a pluralization is pretty significant. "Arms" vs "Arm" is a big difference. So your hypo is wrong
“Can the feds kill a bunch of barred owls in the Pacific Northwest, where they are non-native but flourishing, to see if that does anything to help the endangered northern spotted owl, which is native to the region? Ninth Circuit (2018): Yes. Ninth Circuit (2022): Yes.”
So horses, which are also non-native, can be killed if they threaten native species?
Cats are an invasive species; they came from Africa and they kill millions of native songbirds every year. Maybe the feds could do something about them while they’re at it.
Like our glorious feline overlords would allow that.
AFIK: Domestic cats are descended from the smaller wild cats (bobcats, lynx...) not the big cats (Lions, Tigers...). The smaller wild cats are found native on almost every major continent.
Smithsonian mag sez: "All domestic cats, the authors declared, descended from a Middle Eastern wildcat, Felis sylvestris ...".
Barred owls are North American natives, albeit eastern North America, so less 'invasive' than horses or cats (or humans!).
Felis sylvestris
Felix the Cat & Silvester the Cat....I never realized the names were jokes before now.
Same here, but Felix should have been obvious. Silvester apparently means from a wooded area, hence sylphs, air spirits which phrase originally derived from wood spirits. Probably.
Oddly, Felix does not derive from feline. Apparently it means happy or good-lucky. Felicity is the female form. Odd, I always thought it meant faithful or true to something.
The diminutive of Felix is Flick. As in Flick lives! for those A Christmas Story Jean Shepherd fans, and who isn't? Was he particularly unlucky in the stories, aside from getting his tongue frozen to the pole? And going on to life choices that included novelty porn.
I couldn't trace fel-as-cat and fel-as-lucky back any further as they are both ancient, but cats are considered lucky with their rotational landings and 9 lives and such so I wonder.
That's it, I'm done.
"Smithsonian mag sez: "All domestic cats, the authors declared, descended from a Middle Eastern wildcat, Felis sylvestris ...".
Which had a range that while including North Africa, extended to the European Mediterranean states, the Arabian Peninsula, India and China. So not specifically an African cat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat
Aaaaannnnnd ... not a North American cat, hence invasive. Moreover, the first sentence of your link says "The wildcat is a species complex comprising two small wild cat species: the European wildcat (Felis silvestris) and the African wildcat (F. lybica)." And the 'European wildcat' part is a hyperlink to the page that says "The European wildcat (Felis silvestris) is a small wildcat species native to continental Europe, Scotland, Turkey and the Caucasus. It inhabits forests from the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, Central and Eastern Europe to the Caucasus."
And I never said that domestic cats weren't an invasive species in North America, just that they weren't "African"
Right. Middle Eastern.
"All domestic cats, the authors declared, descended from a Middle Eastern wildcat, Felis sylvestris ..."
Humans are an invasive species to North America, from Africa.
"Barred owls are North American natives, albeit eastern North America, so less 'invasive' than horses or cats (or humans!)."
The native range of barred owls is not exactly limited to eastern North America
https://www.sdakotabirds.com/species/maps/barred_owl_map.htm
That's the current range, not the original one. For one source:
"Barred owls (Strix varia) have expanded their geographic range from eastern to western North America."
This is common knowledge, it has been part of the Spotted Owl discussion for many years.
According to this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20491416
Barred owls were present as far west as Montana in 1873
.
Barred owls may well be expanding their range west, but unless you go back more than a century, the expansion isn't anywhere near as extreme as that quote implies.
It's one thing to take action against an "invasive species" when that species was introduced to a new environment by human action.
However no wild animal species exists in a range that is fixed and immutable for all time. We ought not interfere in natural range shifts.
"...to a new environment by human action."
FWIW, the alleged human action in the case of the Spotted Owl is cutting old growth forest. The Spotted Owls prefer old growth, the Barred Owls prefer second growth.
FWIW, I'm not taking any ethical position here, just a biological one. Barred Owls are not, contrary to the map you posted, native to the Pacific NW. You are free to think that Barred Owls displacing Spotted Owls is good or bad; I'm only speaking to the biological facts.
"FWIW, the alleged human action in the case of the Spotted Owl is cutting old growth forest. The Spotted Owls prefer old growth, the Barred Owls prefer second growth."
No, the standard I set was not any human action of any kind, it was specifically human action in physically moving the animals from place A to place B.
12,000 years ago, and 60,000, none of this was here, rather, a mile of ice.
We have allowed corruption to get in the way of progress, using silly memes of disturbing the long term balance of nature, when no such thing exists.
The useful idiots smile as they get little mental strokes of pleasure at having chased a chimera, and the corruptions get wealthier in back room haggling to get production moving again.
The corruptions haggle to get wealthier to get back out of the way of the productive who keep us alive and progressing.
Such has been the way ever since a handful of thugs grabbed clubs and went down to the dirt crossroads where farmers traded, and declared they weren't highway robbers but rather leaders mandating the farmers pay their fair share.
To go back to the original posting: "Can the feds kill a bunch of barred owls in the Pacific Northwest,"
The historic range of the Spotted Owl was old growth Pacific Northwest forests, from the Cascade Range west. And in that context, Barred Owls are invasive, i.e. they didn't exist in that range in the earliest records we have, and they are displacing Spotted Owls in that range presently.
This isn't disputed.
Can they, as a legal matter? Certainly.
Will doing that accomplish their stated aim? Almost certainly not.
Re: hair-raising licensing regimes
See eyebrow-threading case in Texas: Patel v. Texas Dep't of Licensing and Regulation, 469 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. 2015)
In this declaratory judgment action several individuals practicing commercial eyebrow threading and the salon owners employing them assert that, as applied to them, Texas's licensing statutes and regulations violate the Texas Constitution's due course of law provision. They claim that most of the 750 hours of training Texas requires for a license to practice commercial eyebrow threading are not related to health and safety or what threaders actually do. The State concedes that over 40% of the required hours are unrelated, but maintains that the licensing requirements are nevertheless constitutional.
The trial court and court of appeals agreed with the State. We do not. We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?scidkt=7227771451608150854&as_sdt=2&hl=en
Oh, such wit and poetry! And much of it funny too. Went great with my dark roast coffee this morning.