The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Padded cells, hidden cash, and official duties.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
New cert petition: Anthony Novak was jailed for four days and prosecuted for making a fake Facebook page satirizing the Parma, Ohio police dept.—an obvious First Amendment violation! And yet the Sixth Circuit granted qualified immunity to the officers involved, so IJ is asking the Supreme Court to step in and settle a deep split among the circuits on what to do when probable cause rests on speech. Or, better yet, the Court could nuke the doctrine of qualified immunity into the sun. Read all about it at Cleveland.com.
- In 2019, President Trump publicly denied a woman's accusation that he raped her in a department store changing room in the 90s. She sues him in his personal capacity for defamation, but the feds intervene, seeking to substitute the federal gov't as the defendant, which would mean the case is toast (since the feds have sovereign immunity in defamation cases). District court: No dice, feds. Second Circuit (over a dissent): Actually, we'd like to ask the D.C. Court of Appeals whether, under D.C. law, the president's comments to the press were within the scope of his official duties. (If so, this case is toast.)
- Connecticut police wish to transfer a mentally disturbed inmate to a padded cell. The inmate gets mouthy and learns what happens when you bring words to a baton/K9/taser fight. Second Circuit: Qualified immunity. Dissent (Calabresi, J.): Not only shouldn't there be qualified immunity in this case, there shouldn't be qualified immunity in any case.
- New Jersey highway cops find three plastic bags with heart-shaped candies and arrest the motorist—but do not test the candies for two months. Whoops! They are not drugs. And even knowing that, it takes an additional four months to drop the charges. District court: Could be false arrest and malicious prosecution. No qualified immunity. Third Circuit: And the officers can't appeal that just yet because the motorist subsequently amended his complaint (at the district court's invitation), and that's not interlocutorily appealable.
- Fort Worth, Tex. officer shoots allegedly unarmed septuagenarian dead after going to wrong home to investigate burglar alarm. Plaintiffs: And the city is liable because of its policies: pairing rookie cops together on the midnight shift, not training officers that odd-numbered and even-numbered houses are on opposite sides of the street, and more. District court: Those things are all too attenuated from the actual shooting. The city is off the hook, but the excessive force claim against the officer can go to a jury. Fifth Circuit (unpublished): Sounds right to us.
- Last year, Texas officials flagged over 11k registered voters as potential noncitizens. Must the state turn over info identifying these folks in response to a public records request from the ACLU and other groups? District court: Yup, turn over the records. Fifth Circuit: Reversed. The plaintiffs may be entitled to the info, but they haven't shown how they—as opposed to the public at large—would be injured if it's withheld. No standing. Judge Ho, concurring: But that should be pretty easy to get around in a subsequent suit and, unlike the rest of the panel, I don't think it's gratuitous to say so.
- Allegation: Texas Justice of the Peace—a former Pentecostal preacher—opens court with a prayer delivered by a local faith leader. During the prayer, the judge scans the audience to see who is participating. Half-hearted participants can expect a surly reception when their case comes up for argument. Fifth Circuit: The evidence of bias is too speculative to support an Establishment Clause violation. Dissent: There's at least enough to go to a jury.
- In which Kim Davis—of Kentucky-clerk-cum-marriage-license-denier fame—loses her second bid for qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit (unpublished). Back the case goes to the district court for a trial on damages, after which Ms. Davis gets to appeal to the Sixth Circuit for a third time.
- If law enforcement from eight different federal, state, and local agencies ever raid your home (with a warrant), search your place of business (without a warrant), and ignite a flashbang grenade near your sleeping 1-year-old, the Seventh Circuit has some (published and unpublished) advice on how and whether your suit for damages might proceed if, among other odds and ends, the roles and identities of the officers involved is a tad unclear—and irrespective of whether you are now serving a lengthy sentence for drug dealing. (Ethics query: Should the magistrate judge who signed the allegedly defective warrant recuse from these proceedings? Or is it okay because he isn't making dispositive rulings?)
- In 1989, the director of the Oregon Dept. of Corrections, who'd been brought in to root out corruption, is murdered at work—stabbed through the heart. A parolee confesses to the murder several times on different days, giving details not publicly known and corroborated by physical evidence. Nevertheless, investigators shift their attention to another man who steadfastly maintains his innocence. No physical evidence ties him to the crime, but he's barred from introducing evidence of the parolee's admissions and is convicted on the basis of witness testimony. He's sentenced to life and spends nearly thirty years in prison before the district court grants habeas and orders him released. Ninth Circuit: Nearly all the witnesses have recanted, claiming they lied because of police misconduct, and it was super unconstitutional to exclude the parolee's confessions. No reasonable juror would've voted to convict with the recantations and other confessions. (Yes, there is a podcast and movie about the crime.)
- Grants Pass, Ore. has more homeless residents than shelter beds, forcing some homeless to sleep in public spaces. Easy fix, says the town, we'll just make that illegal. Ninth Circuit: You can't ticket the involuntarily homeless just for being homeless. Dissent: Even if that's right, it has to be assessed person by person, not on a class basis.
- Police seize cash hidden in Las Vegas armed robbery suspect's attic (in 2014) and then in his mattress (in 2017). But wait! Charges in first matter are thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct, and he's never charged with anything to do with the second. (He is, however, convicted of a different armed robbery.) But the gov't just sits on the cash, a cool $65k, taking none of the steps necessary to civilly, criminally, or administratively forfeit it. Ninth Circuit: Neither the robber nor the gov't can have it.
- Does federal law preempt California's attempt to regulate prisons run for the federal gov't by private contractors? Ninth Circuit (en banc): Have you read McCulloch v. Maryland? This is not too different from that.
- Congress authorizes a California dam in 1954 and seems to say it shouldn't let water go downstream to help the local steelhead. Two decades later Congress passes the Endangered Species Act, which, once the steelhead is listed as endangered, seems to mean that perhaps the dam should do just that. Ninth Circuit: Some expansive language in the original act means it doesn't contradict the ESA, so back to the district court to work out maybe releasing some more water. Dissent: That's not what the language says. But if it does it's nondelegation doctrine time.
- Without a warrant, Long Lake Twp., Mich. officials repeatedly fly a drone over family's home, curtilage, and five-acre wooded property, recording in HD. (They discover some old cars that can't be seen from a public vantage point.) Michigan Court of Appeals: Which is not a problem because the Fourth Amendment only protects against police searches, and this was code enforcement.
- And in cert grant news, the Michigan Supreme Court will consider whether the state's civil forfeiture statute authorizes the forfeiture of a vehicle based on Detroit police's allegations that a nursing student transported—not drugs—but a person who bought and immediately consumed a small amount of drugs in her car. (Not for nothing, but the allegations are applesauce. This is an IJ case.)
In the nearly 10 years since Los Angeles entrepreneur Ryan Crownholm started MySitePlan.com, he's created over 40,000 informal maps, called site plans, to help people with a huge variety of projects—hotels looking to guide guests from the lobby to their rooms, homeowners and contractors showing local building departments where they'll build a fence or shed, and much more. Basically anytime someone needs a handy map, MySitePlan.com can make one using publicly available information. But California licensing officials are trying to shut Ryan down because they say he is illegally practicing land surveying. Which is madness. Ryan doesn't claim to be making the authoritative legal surveys necessary for bigger projects, and no one has ever been confused. Taken literally, the state's position would mean anytime someone hand-draws a map on a napkin, they'd risk criminal liability. So this week IJ and Ryan filed suit in federal court. 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
"Ninth Circuit: Neither the robber nor the gov't can have it."
I'll give it a good home!
That was my thought: So, okay, who gets it then?
The government keeps it; they just can't spend it. Yet.
If the government can't establish the rightful owner, does the robber get to keep it? My memory tells me a thief has title superior to everybody but the rightful owner, but that may change when the government gets involved. Except the government neglected to pursue forfeiture.
re: 2nd Circuit #1 – You’re accused of a crime. You deny the crime. Unless you’re convicted of the crime, I can’t see any possible scenario where the denial alone can or should be grounds for a defamation charge. That gets too close to punishing someone for having the audacity to defend themselves.
re: 2nd Circuit #2 – Calabresi for the next SCOTUS opening
re: MI Court of Appeals – Distinction without a difference. “Code enforcement” is not a magic wand that grants government wishes of power.
Re:Michigan Court of Appeals: what exactly is code enforcement doing if not enforcing the law? Which to me makes them law enforcement and subject to warrant requirements.
Seems to me the 4th amendment is basically a right to privacy. The urge by government courts to contort ordinary language and intent to protect government is obscene.
"The urge by government courts to contort ordinary language and intent to protect government is obscene."
Agreed.
Yeah. It seems like that plain, original meaning of the 4th is that the government can’t troll through your property looking for a reason to punish you.
And how can something be a code violation if it has so little impact on the neighbors that they don’t know it’s there?
Now hang on. The court didn't say that the Fourth Amendment didn't apply here. In fact, it assumed it did. It just didn't apply the exclusionary rule. "...the Maxons have a powerful remedy for the alleged violation of their Fourth Amendment rights—a civil lawsuit sounding in constitutional tort."
Of course, I disagree with the court anyway. "And even assuming
some marginal deterrent value impacting township officials..." - what do they mean "marginal"? Do they think the township officials, if they knew they couldn't use the unconstitutionally-acquired footage, would continue to fly the drones anyway? Do they think the officials are stupid, or malicious, or what?
"You’re accused of a crime. You deny the crime. Unless you’re convicted of the crime, I can’t see any possible scenario where the denial alone can or should be grounds for a defamation charge."
Yes. But if you deny it on the basis that a specific person is lying, that's rather different. It's obvious one or other party is lying and libelously so. Just not obvious which one. At this stage you'd have to be a child of limited mental capacity to believe Trump is telling the truth about anything, but who knows, maybe his accuser is flagrantly dishonest too.
1. That two people disagree about what happened 20 earlier does not mean either are lying.
2. I am deeply dubious that anyone (and certainly this person) can show damages as a result of Trump's accusations.
1) But that's not what happened. Trump accused his accuser of malicious libel. Truth is a possible defence at trial, but that a cause of action exists there is unquestionable.
2) Are you smoking something? The reputational damage caused by a prominent public figure accusing someone of malicious false accusations is obviously huge.
I agree with this (and have said so multiple times here) as a general rule, but it should be noted that Trump (as is his wont) did far more than just proclaim his innocence. He went on the attack against EJC.
As a prospective juror I would not find somebody liable for an "exculpatory no", either criminally or civilly. If you, the plaintiff or prosecutor, don't like that have the judge find you another juror.
Or, better yet, the Court could nuke the doctrine of qualified immunity into the sun.
There is a technical legal phrase for that. FAT CHANCE.
Both of Judge Calabresi's opinions contain line numbers, while the other opinions in the case do not; the majority opinion in the second case also has significantly different margins.
This seems odd to me.
"Grants Pass, Ore. has more homeless residents than shelter beds, forcing some homeless to sleep in public spaces. Easy fix, says the town, we'll just make that illegal. Ninth Circuit: You can't ticket the involuntarily homeless just for being homeless. Dissent: Even if that's right, it has to be assessed person by person, not on a class basis."
The court is forcing every city within its jurisdiction to surrender to the zombie horde. Any small town will be overrun by the bums and if they actually started building more beds it would just attract more bums, far beyond the ability of any city to build. Much as I like public parks, there's no point in having one in the Ninth Circuit, the zombies will just occupy it, littering it with feces and drug needles making it unusable for human usage. SCOTUS should take a test case and make it very clear the Constitution doesn't require this madness, and that the homeless are NOT nobility-- the laws can be enforced against them in the same sense they can be enforced against us commoners who are paying all their bills.
But the law has to contain a way to not violate it. You're homeless, the shelters are full. What do you do to not violate the law? What are your options? Not sleep? That becomes physically impossible eventually.
You get a job and secure housing with that or otherwise secure some form of housing, just like most people do. A lot of these guys are just grifters who prefer to live off the extremely generous social benefits and private charities, most would straighten up and fly right if they weren't so heavily incentivized to grift. For those that can't or won't, enforce the laws as written. They can get whatever treatment or education they need in prison. Which, bluntly, will cost about the same as what we're doing now because we're already paying for the food and medicine, but they'll be better off and also the general population will be better off because the public parks won't be blighted. And yet the Ninth Circuit refuses to allow us to do this.
So you're homeless and tired, probably unemployable, but instead of having a nap in a doorway, you should go and find a job, work in it for a month, get your first paycheck, find an apartment willing to rent to you, and _then_ you can have some sleep?
Your parents must be so proud of you.
There are jobs that pay you that day-- McDonald's does this. There are budget places that rent to you that day. From a public policy perspective, I don't think we should surrender public parks to the zombie horde because we're pretending it's impossible for them to shape up and fly right.
More importantly, a city is free to surrender its parks to the zombie hordes if it wants to, that's democracy for you sometimes the polity does strange things. But that's not what's happening, the city is trying to resist the zombie hordes and the Ninth Circuit is saying that doing so violates the 8th Amendment, because it's cruel and unusual to enforce laws against the homeless, based on their mere representation that they "can't" get shelter.
Which takes us back to nobility. You or I sleep in a public park and it's off to jail we go, when the nobility does it that's their feudal right. This might be legal if a city does this but, plainly, the Constitution doesn't *require* this two-tiered system of justice.
I'm not sure which is dumber and more fantastical: these two claims or the ones about getting treatment and education in prison or the ones about benefits being generous. Look, if you just want to say, "Fuck these people; they're not actually human so I don't care what we do to them as long as I don't have to look at them," then just say so. (Hey, you did!)
But don't try to pretend to yourself that you're not actually being inhumane because these people actually have a lot of good options that they're just obstinately not choosing. (There actually are a segment of the homeless who will refuse to stay in shelters even if spaces are available; they present a different situation. But here, no spaces were available.)
Yes, the problem in this country is definitely that we treat homeless people too nicely. Asshole.
Everything I said is true and facts don't cease to exist because they're ignored. People can and do get degrees and medical treatment in prison. McDonald's allows franchisees to do daily paychecks and extended stay motels will rent to you that day. Between private charity and city efforts, the homeless receive a lot in benefits, which is likely what's discouraging many of them from working. I think they'd be better off in the long run if we encouraged them to work. The legal system does indeed treat the homeless as a form of nobility, as the linked opinion does (laws for us, not for them). Regardless, though, I know the public will be better off if the public parks aren't littered with feces and drugs (odd how the people who supposedly don't have money always find a way to buy drugs, by the way).
You can disagree with all of this and think that the purpose of public parks is for our betters to do drugs in. But that's a public policy question. I just checked the Constitution again and nowhere does it require cities to do this, the Ninth Circuit is just making stuff up.
People can and do dig gardens to plant radishes and find buried treasure, too. But that doesn't make it a reasonable life plan.
McDonalds cannot prevent franchisees from doing daily paychecks. That does not mean that franchisees actually offer daily paychecks. A few subscribe to a service that allows employees to get a portion of their day's pay that day. (All they need is a smartphone!) You can see how that might be less than helpful for a person who needs to find a place to live and buy food.
How many extended stay motels do you think there are in Grants Pass, Oregon? How many of them will rent a room to a homeless person with no credit card? How many of them can be afforded by someone working at McDonalds?
If you think the homeless receive "a lot in benefits," you are completely clueless. What's "discouraging" them from working is that (a) they likely have few marketable skills; (b) nobody wants to hire homeless people; and (c) homeless people don't have ways to apply for or get to jobs.
Like I said, asshole. No, the linked opinion does not "treat the homeless as a form of nobility"; saying that you can't throw someone in jail for sleeping in a cardboard box in an alley is not quite like giving them access to Windsor Castle.
I hope you have some financial interest in this, otherwise you’re embarassing yourself for no reason.
“No, the linked opinion does not “treat the homeless as a form of nobility”; saying that you can’t throw someone in jail for sleeping in a cardboard box in an alley is not quite like giving them access to Windsor Castle.”
You either didn’t read or understand the opinion. The Ninth didn’t hold it was unconstitutional to criminalize certain conduct (sleeping in a park). It held it was unconstitutional to criminalize certain conduct as applied to the homeless. If you or I do it, we can and will be held liable for our actions. As dubious as this decision is, it would be less-so if it applied the same law to everybody. Instead the politically favored homeless won themselves a special immunity (in addition to all the other public money already spent on them). I suspect cities could grant de facto titles of nobility in this fashion but again that’s not what’s happening– the Ninth Circuit is pretending this nobility is required by the Constitution.
And the rest of your post is little better. I proposed two easy ways homeless could get shelter, you have little response except you don’t like them– a particular McD doesn’t offer sameday pay? Work for one that does. A particular locale doesn’t have lodging? Go to one that does. With a few good decisions and hard work they could be sheltered in a day, at most two, they either just can't or won't do it.
If they’re incapable of these basic adult-level tasks, then it sounds like incarceration is better, because it’s three hots and a cot and they’re obviously incapable of taking care of themselves. We don’t have to have our public parks blighted, nor is this what the people have chosen. This is a blight the courts are forcing on us, because the homeless are ably represented by counsel and the people are not.
No, it held that it was unconstitutional to criminalize being homeless. When a law only targets one class of person, removing that target is not treating that class of person like nobility. Since sleep is an involuntary and unavoidable behavior, and since there are not enough shelter beds, the law criminalizes the status of being homeless.
The court emphasized that it was not saying that the city could not limit where people can sleep, or that the city could not have restrictions on sleeping arrangements (e.g., no tents). But it cannot say that sleeping in the city is illegal if you can’t find a bed in a shelter.
"Easy." You invented hypotheticals that are based on complete denials of reality. They can find a hypothetical McDonalds that pays employees their full pay daily — no evidence that there's a single one in Grants Pass, Oregon, of course — and then they can find a hypothetical extended stay hotel that would admit them under those conditions. Again, no evidence that there's a single one in Grants Pass, Oregon.
You're probably spending more by arresting, charging and imprisoning them than it would cost to find some non-carceral solution just out of sheer bile and making it more and more difficult for them to find a way out. Being poor as a moral failing is a cancerous attitude.
We're already paying all their bills and in return they do nothing (at best). I don't think the cost difference will be that much, when you properly account for how much damage they won't be able to do behind bars and that we would reclaim our parks from the forces hostilely occupying them.
Yet another thing that is not in fact a fact.
Then you're also clueless about the cost of incarceration.
If we apply precedent from the supposed right to interstate travel Compton can say, "go sleep in Lynwood" and Lynwood can say "go sleep in Compton".
How badly have you screwed your own life up that there is not a single person you could ask for help?
Probably badly. But that's a fait accompli at that point.
The zombie hordes are a phenomenon of cities with mild winters.
Christ, hoping for a die-off are we?
No, but the fact that the homeless tend to migrate to places where it's easier to be homeless says something about this "oh where will they go, what will happen to them" argument.
As is customary, plenty of authoritarian right-wing assholes from Texas and on the Fifth Circuit are described.
In the 'prayer before court' case, it is difficult to determine whether Wayne Mack, the slack-jawed magistrate, is a bigger authoritarian asshole than Judge Jerry Smith (joined by fellow culture war debris Kurt Engelhardt), or vice versa.
The important point is that all of these authoritarian, superstitious wingnuts will be replaced by their betters, ideally without delay.
W. Mack: "My 'I take great pains to convince attendees that they need not watch the ceremony—and that doing so will not affect their cases' t-shirt is raising a lot of questions already answered by the shirt."
People like Mack are a substantial part of the reason people -- educated, smart people residing in successful communities in particular -- are discarding organized religion. Religious believers could effectively promote their ostensible beliefs by displaying conduct even slightly better than others, yet they do not. Instead, they tend toward bigotry, ignorance, and backwardness, inclining better people to reject the dogma and superstition.
The problem with these idiots is they openly demonstrate a lack of knowledge of or faith in what their own damn religion mandates. According to what Mack professes to believe in, God told Mack not to do it, pretty plainly and explicitly, but Mack thinks he knows better than God.
“ According to the township, neighboring property owners reported that the Maxons had expanded their junk yard”
How did they know it was expanded? Heavier traffic? Noise?
Code violations are the modern equivalent of speed traps.
That may be true, but both are necessary. If you have a roadway where people are continually exceeding the speed limit, you likely need a speeding enforcement effort. If you neighbor decides to raise a pig in the backyard for food, you will likely cry code violation.
While neighbors may demand speeding enforcement, they do not "need" it. The speed limit is a number. Rarely does it have any substantial relationship to the real world. There is a rational basis for thinking it might, so you won't likely get speed limit laws thrown out, but in practice the number is meaningless.
Well, no, that's not at all true. There are actual safe speeds for roads. Whether a particular road is set at the correct number can always be questioned, but they're real things.
[deleted]
"If you neighbor decides to raise a pig in the backyard for food, you will likely cry code violation."
"Your honor, I have been accused of keeping a pig in my backyard for food. I move to dismiss the case since the matter has become [burp] moot."
(If only it were a cow, I could use the same joke, except with "moo-t.")
I'm definitely in trouble. 1st thing I did when I moved here was to take detailed measurements of my property and everything located on it to make a 1/4 accurate map. Every tree, bush, the exact location and layout of the house, where the gas line enters and the path it takes, the driveway, the retaining walls on either side, the location of the septic tank and leech bed, everything all in a handy AutoCAD file.
It's kinda thrilling to know I am a fugitive from justice on the lam.
Maybe I can sell my story to some True Crime writer and get some studio to take out an option. "Blood On The Tape Measure: The Mad Surveyor".
A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER!!
"And he seemed like such a nice, quiet person, to think he gave candy to my children on Halloween"
--anonymous neighbor, name withheld by request
When I was in middle or high school I took a two week course in engineering at a college. We learned surveying. I hope I was covered by whatever licenses the teachers held.
Hide your children, hide your real property, before he escapes to map again!
"Which is not a problem because the Fourth Amendment only protects against police searches, and this was code enforcement."
The Wisconsin Supreme Court would disagree, holding a few years back (in my case) that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments prohibit state laws that prohibit you from challenging your property tax assessment if you refuse to let government inspectors inside your house.
"Allegation: Texas Justice of the Peace—a former Pentecostal preacher—opens court with a prayer delivered by a local faith leader. During the prayer, the judge scans the audience to see who is participating. Half-hearted participants can expect a surly reception when their case comes up for argument. Fifth Circuit: The evidence of bias is too speculative to support an Establishment Clause violation. Dissent: There's at least enough to go to a jury."
This is a relief, all this time I thought there was absolute immunity for judicial misbehavior. But the court seems to be talking about the case on its merits (even if a majority sided with the judge). And while the judge won, it was merely 2-1 and on the merits alone, not based on his magical robe of immunity.
So now we can sue judges who maliciously send innocent people to prison, for example?
The judge in this case was being sued for equitable relief only, which was on reason the Fifth Circuit reaches the merits.
In addition, Judge Mack was only being sued with respect to administrative conduct in the courtroom. The prayers were administrative, and were not part of the procedure used to hear arguments, accept evidence, issue orders, and issue judgments. The authority for federal courts to review the judicial procedure of state courts is rather limited. Aside from Supreme Court review of state court orders and judgements once all avenues of state appellate review are exhausted, federal courts may remove cases from state courts under certain circumstances. beyond that, federal courts have no authority over state courts.
If it weren't too late to edit my remark, I would have added "/sarc"