The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Cicero, Bentham, Coke, and Kierkegaard.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
Anita Adams wants to build a modest addition on her property in Seattle so that family members can move in, but the city says she must pay nearly $77k in "housing affordability" fees to get a permit. Which means she cannot afford the addition and there will be less housing. Click here to learn more about IJ's latest case.
Survivor of a woman who died in childbirth sues obstetrician for medical malpractice in Massachusetts state court. The federal government removes the case under the Westfall Act and substitutes itself for the doctor because he was a federal employee, then gets the case dismissed based on shorter statute of limitations for suits against the government. On appeal, the government confesses the doctor actually wasn't a federal employee, but it defends the result based on a different statute. First Circuit: After conducting some tamisage (Judge Selya alert!) on this messy case, there isn't enough evidence to rule on the government's Johnny-come-lately theory. Case remanded.
Former high school athletes sue the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, alleging that the conference's policy of allowing transgender students to participate in women's track and field violates Title IX. As a remedy, the plaintiffs want an injunction requiring the conference to amend the results of competitions they lost to transgender athletes. Second Circuit: Even if plaintiffs had a cognizable injury, amending the results would provide only personal satisfaction, which isn't enough for standing.
Virginia inmate receives bad medical care, delaying treatment for his hepatitis C until he had developed terminal liver cancer. His estate sues, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment and state-law malpractice. Fourth Circuit: There's enough here for the Eighth Amendment claims to go to a jury, so no qualified immunity. But because the doctor was a state employee, the malpractice claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Dissent: The doctor may have been negligent, but there's no evidence he was deliberately indifferent to the inmate's medical needs.
Fifth Circuit (2020): In a case about the First Amendment right to distribute information about 3D printed firearms, the W.D. Texas erred when it dismissed claims by Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation against the New Jersey Attorney General for lack of jurisdiction. Fifth Circuit (2022 pt. 1): The W.D. Texas erred again when it severed those claims and transferred them to New Jersey; we can't order the D.N.J. to send the claims back, so we order the W.D. Texas to request that the claims be transferred back. D.N.J. (2022): No. Fifth Circuit (2022 pt. 2): If you won't honor the trial court's request, then we humbly beseech you to honor ours. D.N.J. (2022): Still no. Fifth Circuit (2022 pt. 3): [with barely concealed rage] Ordinarily, these requests are honored in the interest of comity, but there's nothing we can do.
President Biden's executive order requiring most private employees working on federal contracts to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is the latest piece of executive branch lawmaking to—over a dissent—meet the Fifth Circuit's administrative abattoir.
You know those airport cops who chivvy your car along when you're trying to pick up family members in the arrivals lane? Well, in Houston, the more dedicated ones go the extra mile and curse at you and punch you in the face in front of your wife and daughter and grandchild. Fifth Circuit: The excessive-force claim against the officer may proceed.
In which the Fifth Circuit invokes Cicero, Bentham, and Coke for the proposition that, no, litigants can't just agree among themselves that court records shall be kept secret. Knock off the "overbroad sealing practices," guys.
Tippah County, Miss. man rapes a 17-year-old, bludgeons a 16-year-old in the head with a hammer, and then kidnaps and murders a 20-year-old. (He commits the final crime while out on bond, four days before his first trial was set to begin.) He unsuccessfully presents an insanity defense at his three separate trials and is convicted of all three attacks. In his habeas petition for the rape conviction, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel relating to the insanity defense. Fifth Circuit: Even if a prisoner can satisfy AEDPA, he must still show factual innocence to prevail. This guy argues only legal innocence and is factually guilty as sin—he loses.
A 10-foot buffer zone that prevents speech and leafletting outside the entrances of Louisville, Ky. medical facilities probably violates the First Amendment, says the Sixth Circuit. For starters, it applies to all medical facilities—not just the abortion clinic where protesters have committed vandalism and other torts in the past. And it also burdens these plaintiffs, who say they just want to engage in compassionate, non-threatening conversations—not protests. The district court is reversed; the buffer zone is preliminarily enjoined.
Either/Or was Søren Kierkegaard's disquisition on the conflict between the aesthetic and the ethical. With that in mind, please note that "children comply with any number of grammatical rules without awareness even of their existence" is not from Kierkegaard's analysis of the subjectivity of freedom, but instead a phrase from the Sixth Circuit's disquisition on And/Or, and whether "and" means one or the other when it comes to safety-valve relief under the First Step Act. With a dissent, the Sixth Circuit joins the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth on the "or" side of the slash, in a growing split with the Ninth and Eleventh.
Have you ever wondered where the line falls between "sending juvenile emails mocking a citizen's disability in your official capacity as a government attorney" and "sending juvenile emails mocking a citizen's disability in your private capacity as a dude who thinks that's a good idea for some reason"? The Sixth Circuit (unpublished) has you covered.
Allegation: Gay female Ohio State Highway Patrol sergeant is reprimanded for minor infractions that male officers are not and subjected to vile insults from supervisors (one of whom puts a picture in her locker of naked women in sexual embrace and with a snake protruding from one's vagina). She is ultimately constructively fired over a forearm tattoo, which male officers also have and which don't violate policy in any case. District court: Could be sex and sexual orientation discrimination. Sixth Circuit (unpublished): Our caselaw is unclear on what happens when the officials who do the harassing are not the ones who do the firing. So qualified immunity, and, no, we're not going clear anything up for next time.
Through Lucas County, Ohio child welfare worker's efforts, siblings are removed from neglectful (and for one child, abusive) home and placed in what the Sixth Circuit (unpublished) calls a "living hell." And, contrary to the district court, officials who fail to look into past reports of sexual abuse against potential foster parents and then delay investigating current reports are not entitled to qualified immunity.
On Valentine's Day 2020, 45-year-old Illinois man strikes up a conversation on a dating app with "Bailey," who claims to be 18. After two days of flirty conversation, Bailey admits she's only 15, but still wants to meet up for sex, a request she makes at least 11 times. When the man shows reluctance—he doesn't want to go to jail because he has a daughter, you see—Bailey promises she can keep a secret and the man agrees to meet her at a romantic nearby gas station. Readers, you will never guess what happened next. "Bailey" was an FBI agent the whole time! The man is convicted of attempted enticement of a minor. Seventh Circuit (over a dissent): But he put forward enough evidence that the jury should have been instructed on entrapment. New trial!
Allegation: Illinois inmate doing laundry feels a pop in his back and shooting pain. He doesn't receive medical attention for six days, and, even then, he's prescribed psychiatric meds that exacerbate his symptoms rather than help. District court: Case dismissed for improperly joining unrelated claims. Seventh Circuit: There was legal error here—by the district court. The claims related to the same series of events, so they were properly joined, and his complaint shouldn't have been dismissed.
Five days after being booked into Macon County, Ill. jail, man dies of diabetes ketoacidosis. Yikes! Though his blood-glucose level exceeded 500 (300 requires emergency care), the jail nurse said he was a faker and corrections officers just stood around and watched him die. District court: To trial the case will go. Seventh Circuit: Qualified immunity for the corrections officers, who may reasonably rely on jail health professionals' judgment. And sure, the nurse was bad here, but not so bad that every reasonable officer would've understood that they couldn't defer to her. (Claims against the nurse appear to have settled.)
Swimming against the COVID-mootness tide, a "pro-masking plaintiffs" case, involving students asking for pro-masking reasonable accommodations from a Georgia school district, is not dead yet (or at least not moot yet) in the Eleventh Circuit.
Law students! Apply now to IJ's Dave Kennedy Fellowship summer program. The program offers an unparalleled opportunity to substantively contribute to active and future strategic litigation in both state and federal courts. Fellows work closely with IJ attorneys to develop litigation strategies and assist in the nuts and bolts of cutting-edge civil rights litigation, including propounding and responding to discovery requests, drafting motions and briefs, and preparing for hearings. The fellowship offers $7,000 for the 10-week program at our offices in Arlington, Miami, Austin, Tempe, and Seattle and generally runs from the last week of May through early August. Applications are due by January 27th and offers will be made on a rolling basis. For more information, visit www.ij.org/jobs.
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 Med-Mal case is an example of why Shakespeare was right, the OB/GYN should have been invited to the State of the Onion and given one of those Presidential Medal thingies. Performing an emergency C-section on a critically ill Eclamptic patient he'd never treated before and saving at least one of his patients. (I know, if she'd had an A-word, whole thing would have been unnecessary)
Only see C-sections from the North side of the Blood/Brain Barrier (I'd tell you....) can't understand why anyone goes into OB, although now it's 95% Split-tails, it's one specialty where it's not an advantage to have a Penis. And the famous "APGAR" scores?? invented by a Gas-Passer (Split-tail too, what Dude would have thought of it?)
Frank "Pitocin, it's what's for Dinner"
There's a moral here about unintended consequences of "progressive" schemes.
Who says that it's an "unintended consequence"?
I'm guessing Ms. Adams is not a Honky
You looked at the IJ web site about the case, didn't you?
(Why are "progressive" cities such bastions of racism and oppression?)
Adams should have requested that the addition be used as a gay bathhouse. Then Seattle would have not only approved her permit in record time, but would have subsidized the project.
I do not understand the stated reasoning in the transgender case at all. Most meritorious cases only benefit the plaintiff in some personal manner. At the same time, I could well see forcing the state's official records to carry an asterisk to be more than just personal vindication.
Maybe this is just one of the roundup cases with a terrible summary, that has been known to happen plenty often.
You always have the option of reading the case and deciding how fair the summary is.
I think you're reading the phrase "personal satisfaction" with the emphasis on the wrong word. It's not that it would benefit them personally that the court says is the problem — that is actually a point in their favor! It's that it would give them nothing more than personal satisfaction.
I suspect no court wants to be THAT court, the one which puts an end to this destruction of woman's sports if not their rights as a whole.
There's a right to destroy women's sports?
Women's High Jumping, could watch it all day long, all year long, (not Long Jumping, which requires womens built like Mike Ditka)
High Jumping requires long, Long, LONG, LONGGGGGGGGGGGG, Legs, and after Ronaldus, "45", I'd put Dick Fosbury on Mt Rushmore for developing his "Flop", before the "Flop" High Jumpers did the "Straddle" or "Western Roll" and were umm, built like Mike Ditka, now they're basically Super Models who can jump,
Rest of women's sports I could do without, do enjoy the Women Tennis player's grunts/squeals,
Frank "Sports, Man!"
Given how much of a business student athletics is, I think the plaintiffs could have easily argued that e.g. winning the state championship as opposed to being a runner-up would get them better chances at endorsements, athletic scholarships, etc.
A century ago one could imagine judges making a similar claim that there’s no standing in a dispute about academic degrees because academic degrees are there for personal learning, surely they have no economic consequences, surely no gentleman would do something so low as to use an academic degree to make money. And by the way baseball isn’t interstate commerce. It’s just a game. People do it solely for love.
If you protect abortion clinics from protesters your rule is content-based. If you protect all medical facilities your rule is overbroad. Formerly, abortion clinics had the benefit of the most favored nation status under Roe v. Wade et al. Do they still?
Not seeing why such prior restraint of everyone, as opposed to restraining orders on those who've behaved badly or clearly propose to, was ever Constitutional, no matter Roe v Wade.
Edward Harpring, Mary Kenney, Angela Minter, Kentucky Right to Life, and Sisters for Life (collectively, Sisters for Life) believe “that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being and is harmful to mothers.” R.1 ¶ 19. They distribute pamphlets to, and try to engage with, women entering abortion clinics, hoping to persuade the women not to end their pregnancies. They focus “much or all” of their advocacy on women entering Louisville’s EMW Women’s Surgical Center.
......
Keep in mind, moreover, that the goal of the plaintiffs is not to harass or protest, whether loudly or violently. The point of their speech is to offer a compassionate ear.
These two statements from the Sixth Circuit case on clinics seem inconsistent. Besides, you can offer a "compassionate ear" from ten feet away. Just hold up a sign saying, "Come talk to us," or the like. If the woman wants to talk she'll find you. If not, leave her alone.
How "inconsistent"?
Restricting free speech to holding up signs rather than attempted conversation is an interference with effective speech authorized why? (You don't have a right to speak to those unable to read?) How about setting up a "free speech zone" elsewhere where those targeted for persuasion can go if they desire to be persuaded?
I'm not restricting it to holding up a sign.
One can certainly speak, from a distance. Ten feet is not that far.
The point is that they don't want to offer a "compassionate ear." They want to advocate against abortion, just like it says in the first paragraph I quoted. OK, but don't get in people's faces.
And no, saying you have to stay ten feet away is not setting up a "free speech zone," unless you think that being limited to everywhere outside a circle with a ten-foot radius constitutes being put in a free speech zone.
Odd, that panhandlers are allowed to get in peoples' faces to demand money, but anti abortion protesters have to stay at least ten feet away. When did panhandlers become a protected class?
"The point is...They want to advocate against abortion..."
And this restricts their free speech rights why?
Every other court, including those in Fifth Circuit, should treat that entire factual innocence section of the Fifth Circuit’s AEDPA opinion as dicta. In addition to not being necessary to its determination of the merits it is not textually based, misreads what SCOTUS actually said in Davenport, and then it just uses random law review articles and snippets of other cases to make up this new mandatory requirement.
1. 28 USC 2243 says “law and justice” it doesn’t say “factual innocence”
2. SCOTUS said in Davenport that in evaluating law and justice: “ Foremost among those considerations is the States’ “powerful and legitimate interest in punishing the guilty.”
Foremost. Not only. Not exclusively. Foremost.
Just a completely made up rule. But they’ll probably get away with it. Ugh.
...and why not. From the SC to the lowest municipal court, courts get away with all kinds of crap rulings.
The opinion doesn't ignore the fact that 28 USC 2243 says “law and justice”, it merely says that no violation of law and justice sufficient to issue the desired writ occurred in the absence of a colorable claim of factual innocence. Had the facts of the case been otherwise -- had there been a colorable claim of actual innocence -- the court seems to indicate that the writ would have been issued. So how is addressing this dicta?
Hmmnm… OK, I think I get you. Since the perp didn’t claim actual innocence the question of whether it would affect anything was not under consideration and the court need not have opined on it.
The crimes occurred in 1991 and this guy has been on death row forever. It's long past time to vindicate our collective interest in seeing the punishment decided on carried out.
related article: https://www.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2013/11/charles_crawford_seeking_new_t.html
opinion, for cenvenience: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-61019-CV0.pdf
It might be a new rule, but it's a good one.
The point is to prevent an innocent person from going to prison. If the person is actually guilty, then he's just trying to receive a windfall. The court shouldn't at this juncture adjudicate innocence, but if the defendant can't even plausibly argue he's not guilty, then what are we even doing here? Justice is served by the execution of this defendant and he was appropriately sentenced to death. That he still hasn't been executed shows we need another AEDPA or the courts to take it more seriously. This person should have been executed decades ago, his crimes predate the Clinton presidency.
The guy is complaining that he got ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer in one (of three) trials didn’t present the exact insanity defense he now declares the lawyer should have presented.
His assistance from counsel was Constitutionally adequate. LTG is probably right: The court could have restricted itself to saying that. So put this creep down already! Her’s been a Lawyer’s Full Employment Act all by himself. For nearly 30 years!
"a phrase from the Sixth Circuit's disquisition on And/Or"
The Sixth Circuit is writing commentaries on Disney+ shows now?
sensiblechuckle.gif
“Government lawyer nose on, government lawyer nose off”?
The Hamtramck City Attorney was not working as such when he sent the puerile emails, but he was a government attorney at other times. Thus the summary description: the Sixth Circuit reiterated the three relevant tests for state action, and explained why none of them applied in this case.
I read too quickly and thought a description of the district court opinion was part of the holding. Withdrawn.
BTW, there's no record of any attorney discipline meted out to this attorney as a result of this.
The use of "I like bourbon and water" vs. "I like beer and white" when asked what you like to drink is a great example. Really brought to the fore why "and" doesn't necessarily mean "all together".
Also hate the "reasonable accommodation" case. Offering a virtual option is a reasonable accommodation. Allowing you to wear your own mask is a reasonable accommodation. Forcing every single other person to wear a mask is not.
The masking case is even worse than I thought. It's not (just) to force everyone to wear masks, but to force the school district to adopt every single recommendation ever made the CDC. Good grief.
The 11th circuit didn't say that they were entitled to this relief — just that their request for this relief wasn't moot.
Off topic, but I think this Washington State Supreme Court opinion in Henderson v. Thompson is quite remarkable: https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6b551b3e-e22e-4ae8-bd83-1317d5e13d2d&config=00JABhZjY0ZmI3Ny04MzkwLTRlMzAtYjllNC03MzdlOTgyYTY2MDEKAFBvZENhdGFsb2eA00v3ycmKG7ve38pfdpvF&pddocfullpath=%2fshared%2fdocument%2fcases%2furn%3acontentItem%3a66NG-1YK1-FCCX-6378-00008-00&pdcontentcomponentid=506039&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=8s65kkk&earg=sr0&prid=f6b9a0cf-c47d-4b05-aeea-c7175cfcd0bd
A Black woman was rearended by a White one and was dissatisfied with the damages awarded. So she alleged that racial bias was appealed to by descriptions of her as “combative and confrontational” by the defendants lawyer and requested an evidentiary hearing on getting a new trial, an evidentiary hearing at which (were it granted) her assertion would be assumed true and a new trial granted unless the defendant proved that the result of the first trial was unaffected by racial bias. The trial judge denied her that hearing and the SCoWA therefor, when ordering the new trial... er, hearing... directed that the judge be replaced.
What’s utterly remarkable is the low level of proof of bias that SCoWA said would constitute a prima facie case justifying the hearing which, given the conditions, would seem to almost always require a new trial.
Emblematic of society as a whole. Blacks just need to whine and they get what they want.
On the Connecticut transgender athlete case, plaintiffs ought to be able to argue fairly straightforwardly that losing state championship titles cost them scholarship and athletic admissions opportunities, not to mention product endorsement opportunities. Student athletics are enough of a business, and a big business, that the 2nd Circuit’s view that the only stakes involved are personal satisfaction just doesn’t seem plausible or consistent with what we know about the nature of student athletics.
If the students failed to allege that serious money was involved, they must have had very bad lawyers.
One can debate how the merits of a claim like this should be resolved. But standing shouldn’t really be much of a problem here.
Connecticut has sovereign immunity from suit for monetary damages unless clearly abrogated by federal law. The court observed, "OCR's position on transgender students' participation in athletics has fluctuated with the changes in presidential administrations in 2016 and 2020." If the federal government doesn't know what federal law means, why should Connecticut? There is also no consensus in other courts of appeals that plaintiffs have the better of the legal argument.
The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference gets to free-ride on CT's sovereign immunity?
I wanted to talk just about the decision on standing, not the various other defenses the defendants may have. I understand the plainiffs might lose on other grounds, including, after Bostock, the merits.