The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Heat waves, raucous parties, and cemetery discretion.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.
New on the Short Circuit podcast: A special live edition on the D.C. Circuit with former D.C. Circuit clerks (as well as frequent Supreme Court arguers) Lisa Blatt, Kelsi Brown Corkran and Paul Clement.
- Cemetery company buys 180-acre property in Readington Twp., N.J. (that is zoned for cemetery use) and makes significant concessions to township officials: 73 acres to be available for public use, no herbicides or pesticides, preexisting buildings to be renovated, no headstones visible to passersby, and more. Officials: Yeah, but still. No permit for you. District court: A state law that says localities must consent to new cemeteries is unconstitutional because it gives officials "unfettered discretion" to reject applicants for any reason, including "cronyism, economic protectionism, ethnic or racial bias, or a preference for a particular religion." Third Circuit (nonprecedentially): Reversed. The law gives discretion to local legislators—not police, judges, or juries—so it's fine.
- After a trip to the Supreme Court, the question of whether Baltimore officials' suit against 26 multinational fossil fuel companies over climate change (and attendant floods, heat waves, auto accidents, and power outages within city limits) will proceed in state or federal court returns to the Fourth Circuit. Which, over the course of 93 pages, reviews the defendants' eight distinct arguments for federal jurisdiction and rejects all of them. To Baltimore City Circuit Court!
- After the Fairfax County School Board in Virginia eliminated standardized tests from the admissions criteria for the prestigious Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology, Asian-American enrollment dropped from an average of 71% to 54% for the class of 2025. District Court: Which violates equal protection. Fourth Circuit (with concurrence and dissent): The ruling is stayed pending appeal.
- Attorney Steven Biss is most widely known for filing frivolous lawsuits on behalf of former congressman Devin Nunes against, among others, The Washington Post, Esquire, CNN, and a Twitter cow. As a result, like the boy who cried wolf, judges tend not to give him the benefit of the doubt. But at least in this Fourth Circuit case, the trial court was wrong to impose Rule 11 sanctions against him; on the record before it, the district court could not have concluded that Biss's arguments had "no chance of success" (even if the Fourth Circuit sympathizes with its frustration).
- When Defense Distributed put CAD files on the internet for a 3D-printable single-shot pistol back in 2013, the feds went after them for violating international arms-trafficking laws. Because nothing on the internet ever really goes away, the files remain widely available, even though Defense Distributed remains prohibited from sharing them. In the latest update to this First/Second Amendment saga, the Fifth Circuit (over a dissent) issues a rare mandamus order, instructing the district court to undo its partial severance and transfer of claims against the New Jersey AG to the District of New Jersey.
- The Federal Reporter abounds with ways lawyers can lose their cases. But district judges within the Fifth Circuit can lose cases too—in the sense of reassignment to different jurists. And if you preside over an antitrust case while criticizing antitrust law and suggesting that Standard Oil wasn't a real monopoly …
- By a vote of 2 to 1, the Fifth Circuit dissolves a district court's nationwide preliminary injunction of Executive Order 14043, which requires all federal executive branch employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Any employees who get fired for refusing the vaccine can ultimately be reinstated with backpay if the suit is successful, so they don't face irreparable harm in the meantime.
- Man flees from police through several downriver Michigan communities, winds up in Detroit River (in January) and, after a bit of a struggle, submits to arrest. When he's handcuffed facedown and no longer resisting, one or maybe two officers allegedly kick him in the face repeatedly, breaking his nose. Officer: Okay, but he said he couldn't be 100 percent sure who kicked him. Qualified immunity? District court: Nope. Sixth Circuit: Nope (on jurisdictional grounds). Concurrence: Nope (on the merits).
- Landlord: Minnesota's COVID-19 eviction moratorium prevented me from evicting a tenant who "operated a car and boat repair shop … in violation of city ordinances" and others who "threw raucous parties." An unconstitutional taking? A Contract Clause violation? District court: Party on, raucous dudes! I'm throwing this complaint out. Eighth Circuit: Turn the music down at least. The complaint at least states a cause of action. Remanded.
- Randolph County, Mo. court clerk refuses to give 17-year-old an application to obtain judicial permission to get an abortion without notifying her parents. Can she sue the clerk? Clerk: The judge told me to do that! Eighth Circuit: If that's so, the clerk is protected by quasi-judicial immunity, but the judge says he doesn't remember the case and wouldn't usually give such a direction. So (over a dissent) no QJI. And, because the right to apply for judicial permission for abortion without parental notice is clearly established, no qualified immunity either.
- Creighton University fraternity brothers get pledge black-out drunk and high on marijuana at chapter house and then leave him on campus at 1 a.m. He wanders into the dorm room of a random student and slashes her across the neck with a pocketknife. (She survives.) Can she sue the fraternity? The Eighth Circuit says no.
- Man steals pistol from his parents, starts driving from Wyoming to Washington, DC, with vague plan to shoot then-President Trump. When he reaches Nebraska, he abandons his plan, calls his dad, and accepts his dad's advice to return home and seek psychiatric help. Yikes! He's convicted (and sentenced to time served—20 months) of making a threat against the president based on hearsay testimony from medical staff about the phone call with his dad. Eighth Circuit: Doesn't seem like this was the best use of prosecutorial resources, but the conviction stands.
- Oklahoma dental anesthesiologists sue the Oklahoma Board of Dentistry after their requests for specialty licenses are denied (they had wanted to use the licenses in advertisements). Tenth Circuit: But Oklahoma changed the law and the Board says it will now grant the licenses if the dentists reapply, mooting their prospective claims. As for their retrospective claims for damages, the dentists managed to waive all those arguments on appeal.
- After two Palm Beach County, Fla. firefighters are disciplined for criticizing their union's executive vice president in violation of the department's social-media policy, the fire fighters sue, alleging a variety of First Amendment theories. Eleventh Circuit: And their free speech and overbreadth claims can go forward. Their vagueness and free association claims, however, are out.
- Allegation: Without warning, Madison County, Ala. officer body slams suicidal, non-resisting veteran on his head, causing serious neck injury (requiring the surgical removal of a vertebra, insertion of a metal rod, and fusion of two remaining vertebrae). Eleventh Circuit: The excessive force claim against the officer should not have been dismissed. And, because the then-sheriff apparently never investigated or disciplined officers who used excessive force, the claim for supervisory liability shouldn't have been dismissed either.
On Brittany Coleman's 25th birthday, Brookside, Ala. police pulled her over for a bogus infraction. Then they handcuffed her and forced her to stand in the hot sun for no reason while they searched every nook and cranny of her car for over 30 minutes. Finding nothing, they falsely charged Brittany with marijuana possession as a pretext to tow her car. Even though the charge was dropped, she was forced to pay nearly $1k in towing fees and court costs—making her just one of thousands of victims of the police department's predatory pursuit of profit. In 2020, the last year for which Brookside has made numbers available, the town got 49 percent of its revenue from fines and forfeitures—a more than 1,000% increase in such revenues since 2017. This week, IJ filed a class action. Read all about it in AL.com.
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 law gives discretion to local legislators—not police, judges, or juries—so it's fine."
Sure, corruption and cronysim are fine, just so long as you call the person a "legislator."
Why would any sane person have a business in NJ?
Bored Lawyer....This is the People's Republic of NJ. Need I say more?
I'm sorry to say that this gets the Fifth Circuit panel's reasoning quite significantly wrong.
"By a vote of 2 to 1, the Fifth Circuit dissolves a district court's nationwide preliminary injunction of Executive Order 14043, which requires all federal executive branch employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Any employees who get fired for refusing the vaccine can ultimately be reinstated with backpay if the suit is successful, so they don't face irreparable harm in the meantime."
The panel opinion is based on plaintiffs' failure to exhaust remedies under the Civil Service Reform Act. It doesn't depend on skepticism about nationwide injunctions, and it doesn't depend on lack of irreparable harm. Moreover, it doesn't dissolve the preliminary injunction -- that might happen if the Circuit takes up the U.S.'s stay motion again, or after the mandate issues, but it hasn't happened yet.
Um, what? It did in fact dissolve the preliminary injunction; it held that there was a complete lack of jurisdiction to hear the case.
It's not merely a failure to exhaust remedies decision. All appeals under the CSRA must go to the Federal Circuit.
But it didn't dissolve the preliminary injunction. The mandate hasn't issued yet.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you just trying to make a pedantic procedural point? The panel vacated the injunction and remanded to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
You'll never guess which Texas federal judge was removed from that antitrust case by the Fifth Circuit… unless you name the most obvious choice.
At this point, I'd like to see an article on that judges long & storied history.
Wasn't familiar with him before, but based on a quick google he doesn't seem like he is the very model of modern federal court judge ...
I know nothing about antitrust. No clue what a good or bad decision would be (well I guess i know enough to know that Standard Oil is the prototypical trust).
But the fact that I knew who the district judge* was based on his terribleness in Title VII and criminal cases is sure is something.
*also knowing who any district judge outside where you generally practice is a bad sign.
The judge said monopoly, not trust. The two terms are historically related, but they are not the same thing.
Although one interesting thing about him is that while he's a terrible judge, his terrible judging is not ideologically one-sided. For example, he got removed from one of the many cases he got removed from for being too lenient to a guy convicted of providing aid to ISIS.
The "Party on, raucous dudes!" judge is a Trump appointee. Very odd.
(Most Trump appointees have been stellar. I'm surprised to see such a batshit crazy ruling from a Trump appointee.)
1) The IJ summaries are routinely hyperbole. I recommend tracking down the original opinion to see the judges logic. I'd like to read it myself if it can be found.
2) No one gets everything right. Mistakes do get made.
Re: Baltimore Climate Change case.
This just seems like a shakedown to me, to be honest.
Let's say Baltimore is right, that burning fossil fuels causes damages. The city of Baltimore is well aware of this at this point. Yet, the city of Baltimore continues to burn fossil fuels itself, contributing to the damages.
It's like....suing the smoking companies for damages, while smoking a cigar on the stand. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'd love to see the oil companies declare "Ok, you win, we're no longer going to sell petroleum products in Baltimore" just to watch how the pols scurry.
Can you imagine the fun of watching the City try to get the courts to force the companies to sell fuel while simultaneously suing them for selling fuel?
Not to mention they’re suing for damages they haven’t happened yet (floods) or have barely a tenuous relationship to climate change, Car crashes?
Clearly this is a shakedown.
It makes perfect sense for lawyers looking for Russian superyachts on sale. And politicians looking for a multi-decade windfall they can spend in one year on bs with their connected cronies.
Of course, it all comes out of the pocket of the people who enjoyed these decades. This needs to be like salty, fatty foods in restaurants, put off the table by Congress. If there's an issue, solve it with laws going forward.
But that doesn't enrich...enrich...ENRICH!
Is it just me, or have QI decisions been getting better?
As in, judges being more willing to deny QI?
LTG, I would say it is you. I am not being negative. What seems to have changed is publicity about it; meaning much more. But QI is alive and well (at least here in the People's Republic of NJ), and being abused routinely.
The problem is, what would a world without QI actually look like?
Fewer injured citizens, for a start.
Some cops incapable of self-control might leave.
Like pretty much any other country in the developed world
Can you offer some examples of countries that make it much easier to sue police officers for purported misconduct?
I jumped on to criticize the I assumed hyperbolic summary of the hearsay ruling, only to find this in the opinion: " this case is troubling because the only substantive evidence that Cessor had a present or future intent to harm Trump while in Nebraska was based on hearsay statements recorded in an emergency room in Wyoming hours after Cessor abandoned his plan to go to Washington, D.C. Cessor, however, has not appealed the district court’s ruling on the admission of the medical records."
Ugh. Seems like there was some poor lawyering along the way.
Yeah.
Also poor doctoring, if the doctors felt the need to report this to the feds. Whatever happened to confidentiality?
I'm not sure medical confidentiality extends to death threats against others. No, I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
But this seems like a pretty stupid basis for a prosecution.
What's the takeaway? Note to future presidential assassin wannabees: don't confess you have mental problems and need treatment?
Nice.
Or if you have psychiatric problems, do NOT let any details slip to the medical professionals that are supposed to be treating you? Really bad incentive they set up here.
Perhaps they thought it fell under the rule 803(4) exception.
That's a hearsay exception, not an exception to any duty of confidentiality.
"After a trip to the Supreme Court, the question of whether Baltimore officials' suit against 26 multinational fossil fuel companies over climate change (and attendant floods, heat waves, auto accidents, and power outages within city limits) "
The only prudent response, in order to reduce future damages is for all the 26 fossil fuel companies to quit selling any of their products in Baltimore. Gas, natural gas, motor oil, diesel, etc.
Once the suit is litigated or settled the they have an idea of how they can do business without causing more harm to Baltimore, then they might be able to start doing business again.
Or perhaps Baltimore can show us the way to a future without fossil fuels, but I won't hold my breath (CO2 or not).