The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Speedy trials, political advertising, and horseracing.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
This week on the Short Circuit podcast: Live at Georgetown Law, an all-star panel, including UCLA Law Professor Joanna Schwartz, discusses police accountability and Schwartz's new book, Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable.
Last week on the Short Circuit podcast: Live at SMU Law, an all-star panel talks gun rights after Bruen, baby powder bankruptcy, and vaping regulations
- D.C. Circuit: Airplane seats might be small, but there's no reason to think they're dangerously small. So no compelling the FAA to regulate seat size. (Low-key implication for emergencies: a few extra seconds getting out of a small seat won't matter because you're going to die stuck in the aisle.)
- Compare Notice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Jan. 26, 2010) (explaining that "the court strongly urges parties to limit the use of acronyms"), with Int'l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots, ILA, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., No. 21-1249 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 3, 2023) (considering ulp charges brought by IOM on behalf of LDOs and vacating NLRB decision turning on argument about CBA not presented to ALJ).
- Weekly vocab quiz from Judge Selya of the First Circuit: armamentarium, crucible, decretory. (Bonus Judge Selya Shakespeare precision: "to paint the lily.")
- From footnote nine of this Second Circuit opinion, you get the sense that Judge Cabranes doesn't think it should take 26 pages and a chart to explain why a racketeer who shot and killed someone committed a "crime of violence."
- If Americans cared about soccer the way they care about baseball, the Second Circuit wouldn't be allowing antitrust claims against FIFA to proceed to discovery.
- Is the Federal Election Campaign Act regular-levels of complicated or is it tax-levels of complicated? Defendant—an associate of associates of Rudolph Giuliani—convicted of conspiring to funnel illegal contributions from a Russian national to American politicians: It's tax-levels of complicated, of course, so the district court erred in instructing the jury that it could find my violation "knowing and willful" without finding that I had the intent to violate FECA specifically. Second Circuit: Incorrect. Conviction affirmed. (And unlike Robert Bork, the court resisted the impulse to include any scatological puns about "FECA[L] matter.")
- A six-thousand-year-old Anatolian statuette has been circulating on the antiquities market since at least 1961 and sold at Christie's in 2017 for $12.7 million. Republic of Turkey sues Christie's, the statuette's owner, and the statuette itself (in rem). Turkey: It's ours! Second Circuit: No. Under a 1906 Turkish decree, Turkey can claim ownership only if the statuette was found within and exported from Turkey's borders after 1906. And that question raises a boatload of tricky issues about the parties' respective burdens of proof, which the district court got wrong. But no matter: Turkey slept on its rights for decades before trying to claim the statuette, so the doctrine of laches applies. Concurrence: which—just to be clear—is why all that other stuff we just said about burden-shifting is 100% dicta.
- Texas man sues the Lewisville Independent School District and seven school board members, alleging that the district's at-large election system violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the votes of non-white minorities within the district. District Court: Well, this seems like a run-of-the-mill . . . NOW HOLD ON A DAMN MINUTE! The plaintiff is white?! What possible interest could he have in these issues?! Attorneys' fees to the government for this utterly frivolous lawsuit! Fifth Circuit: Let's just say the standing issues in this case are a bit more nuanced than that. No fees for simply bringing the claim.
- In which Samsung learns the hard way that if you wait for three years of litigation to elapse before deciding you'd like to enforce your clickwrap arbitration agreement, the Third Circuit will not be sympathetic.
- "When Allen invited Eric to invest [in breeding race horses], he cautioned Eric that though he might lose all his money, he would at least meet people he would never meet otherwise. Eric called the predictions 'prophetic.'" Third Circuit: And since he didn't really expect to profit, this was more of a hobby than a business, which has some tax implications.
- In 1983, North Carolina sheriffs—acting on a tip—interrogate Henry McCollum, a 19-year-old with an IQ of 56, about the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl. After hours of interrogation, he confesses and implicates four others, including his 15-year-old half-brother, Leon Brown, who has an IQ of 55. Following a similar interrogation in which he's threatened with the gas chamber, Leon also confesses. They're convicted and serve 31 years in prison before DNA evidence conclusively proves that the true perpetrator was a guy who lived near the field where the body was found, who had previously been tried for the rape and murder of a young girl, and who was actively being investigated for another rape and murder of a young girl that occurred shortly after Henry and Leon were arrested—none of which was made known to defense counsel. Suing for their wrongful incarceration, the two receive $100+ mil in damages. Fourth Circuit: Remanded with instructions to string the defendants from a gibbet (just kidding, but you do have to reduce damages award to remove prejudgment interest and offset earlier settlements).
- The Texas-based corporate creators of the "Read a Million Words Campaign" are extremely touchy about their intellectual property. To wit: They sue a Texas public school district and a charter school corporation under the Lanham Act when both similarly encourage young readers to become "Millionaire" readers by breaking the seven-digit mark. Fifth Circuit: No likelihood of confusion, so no claims. Concurrence: While we're at it, it's pretty weird that the district court held that a private charter school corporation enjoys state sovereign immunity but that a public school district does not. That suggests the "arm of the state" test we use for determining those things might need revisiting.
- Notorious 89-year-old Boston gang boss James "Whitey" Bulger is found beaten to death less than 14 hours after being placed in general population at a new prison. Cause of death was a "lock in a sock" bludgeoning weapon, allegedly used by rival mafia inmates. His estate sues the several prison employees under Bivens and the United States via the FTCA. District court: Dismissed. I'm not expanding Bivens, and safeguarding prisoners is a "discretionary function exception" to the FTCA. Fourth Circuit: It is well established that the Bivens doctrine applies to people named Bivens, not Whitey.Affirmed.
- Thanks to the Fourth Circuit you can now call the cheese in your fondue "Gruyère" even if it's made in, say, Wisconsin, and not the Gruyère region of Switzerland and France (even though, explains the court, it "originated in the district of La Gruyère in the Canton of Fribourg, Switzerland in 1115 AD").
- Courtesy of the world's creepiest incarcerated older brother, the Fourth Circuit has an opportunity to do a deep dive into relevance vs. unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
- Congress gives a private organization the power to propose rules for the horseracing industry with a limited role for the FTC to reject them. With facts like those there's a 10-1 chance it violates the nondelegation doctrine. And after trotting out the lawyers it was off to the races, with the Fifth Circuit declaring the law unconstitutional (as we discussed on the podcast). But, just as a parallel race was setting up for a photo finish, Congress amended the law. Thus the Sixth Circuit rejected the challenge, although it hinted that if it weren't for the amendment the plaintiffs would be in the money.
- Cops find a gun on a man during a traffic stop in Gary, Ind. (named for Elbert Gary of judiciary fame). He has two previous "violent felonies" under state law and eight convictions for Hobbs Act robbery. Are those "violent felonies" too, exposing him to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act? Seventh Circuit: We have eight pieces of very bad news for you.
- Coming soon from CBS and the Eighth Circuit—CSI: Omaha
- Sixteen-year-old South Dakotan participates in violent assault, then agrees to a plea deal that recommends probation, but he's sentenced to a year in prison after several violations of his pretrial release conditions (including another assault). But wait! The federal speedy-trial rule for juveniles requires trial within 30 days, and the defendant was in federal custody for 49 days following his original arrest and even moved to dismiss on those grounds before taking the plea. Eighth Circuit: We don't have to decide if that seemingly crystal clear speedy-trial violation would have helped you, because you waived your right to appeal that as part of the plea deal.
- Twitter wants to publish data on the aggregate numbers of national security subpoenas it's received from the government to provide information on Twitter users, but government says reports must be redacted. Ninth Circuit: Strict scrutiny is usually strict in theory but fatal in fact, but this particular censorship is OK because otherwise the terrorists win. That assessment "depends principally" on classified materials, and it's OK that Twitter's lawyers aren't allowed to see the evidence that dooms their case (see supra about the terrorists winning). Concurrence: I agree with the conclusion, but we probably shouldn't rely on the secret evidence one side can't see.
- A private company runs an immigration detention center in Tacoma, Wash. under contract with ICE and pays confined immigrants less than $5 a day for their work. A class of the detained immigrants and Washington State sue for violations of Washington's minimum wage law, and at trial they win $17.3 million in backpay and a $6 million unjust-enrichment award to the state. Company says the minimum-wage law doesn't apply to it, so the awards must be overturned. Ninth Circuit: We'd rather the Washington Supreme Court answer the tricky questions of state law.
- Ninth Circuit: Yo dawg, we heard San Francisco voters like political-advertising disclaimers, so we're affirming disclaimers in your disclaimers so your ads can tell you who funded the funders who funded your ads.
- Strive to live your life with the tenacity and self-confidence of the sovereign-citizen litigant in this Tenth Circuit case without, y'know, emulating any of the rest of it.
- This Tenth Circuit case that yields three different opinions from the three-judge panel may not resolve much about what the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act means, but (in the words of the dissent) it "speaks volumes about Congress's ability to draft a coherent statute."
- Sometimes property disputes hinge on boundary maps or title documents, but sometimes, as in this Tenth Circuit case, judges have to resort to the memoir of "Lew Young's daughter Dixie," who wrote a book about her 1920s childhood living near the disputed road.
- Circuit split alert! For a state-law drug conviction to count as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the state law cannot criminalize substances that aren't illegal under federal law. But when do we compare state and federal law—when the state crime was committed, when the federal offense was committed, or when the defendant is sentenced for the federal crime? The Tenth Circuit, after surveying an existing split, chooses door number two.
- The Speedy Trial Act says that a federal criminal defendant has a right to be tried within 70 days of his initial appearance, so this guy who had to wait almost a thousand days for his trial has a pretty good argument, right? Tenth Circuit: Wrong! (We won't spoil the court's reasoning for you, but it rhymes with "schmobal schmandemic.")
- Police: Our search of the defendant's backpack was valid because our only alternative to impounding it would have been to abandon it in public. It's not like we could just give it to the mysterious stranger who came up mere seconds after the defendant asked for his "girl" and who kept asking us to give it to her. She could have been anyone! Tenth Circuit: Or she could have been his girl. Evidence suppressed!
- Eleventh Circuit: The Supreme Court says we need to look to history when evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws, such as Florida's prohibition on the sale of firearms to 18-to-20-year-olds. And it turns out there were a bunch of Reconstruction Era laws that forbid this exact group from possessing handguns.
- And in en banc news, there is no en banc news … yet.
We don't like to toot our own horn (Ed.: A lie; we shamelessly do), but last Friday Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed legislation—inspired by an IJ model bill—that will recognize many out-of-state licenses, a reform that will let experienced workers operate freely in Virginia without having to complete duplicative training or tests. With the governor's signature, Virginia is now the 20th state that has enacted some form of universal license recognition. 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
That North Carolina verdict approximates ten dollars for every resident of the state . . . a string of similar judgments might incline southern states to police their police. Or they could just pay and pay, making some victims of southern brutality and bigotry rich. Eventually, a better class of southern citizens will arrange police with better education, training, temperament, equipment, accountability, character, leadership, and oversight. But until then . . . make them pay!
(That claim that attorneys' fees should be reduced because 'too much work was delegated to associates' sounds strange. Do the lawyers advancing that argument know how billing rates for lawyers who are not on the government payroll work?)
Antonin Scalia cited that NC case as an argument for the DP. The murder itself, sure, I can understand someone thinking that. But it's not a good look to cite a particular case where it turns out the two convicts were actually innocent.
Not that I think Scalia would have given a shit about their innocence.
Yep. Not a good look at all.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/supreme-court/dna-sets-man-free-after-scalia-mocked-his-death-penalty-appeal/
Former Justice Scalia was just another culture war casualty who couldn't distinguish the reality-based world from a fictional character. If he is remembered in the long term, he'll be mentioned in a clause with Taney, Field, and McReynolds.
This has to be a first for Short Circuit: zero qualified immunity cases, as opposed to the usual six or seven.
There was a Bivens case which is in the same genre.
Off topic:
(And I accept the apology — we’ve all been wrong about something. ME? Many things.)
When you’ve lost even Naomi Wolfe:
“There is no way to avoid this moment. The formal letter of apology. From me. To Conservatives and to those who “put America first” everywhere.
It’s tempting to sweep this confrontation with my own gullibility under the rug — to “move on” without ever acknowledging that I was duped, and that as a result I made mistakes in judgement, and that these mistakes, multiplied by the tens of thousands and millions on the part of people just like me, hurt millions of other people like you all, in existential ways.
But that erasure of personal and public history would be wrong.
I owe you a full-throated apology.
I believed a farrago of lies. And, as a result of these lies, and my credulity — and the credulity of people similarly situated to me – many conservatives’ reputations are being tarnished, on false bases.
The proximate cause of this letter of apology is the airing, two nights ago, of excepts from tens of thousands of hours of security camera footage from the United States Capitol taken on Jan 6, 2021. The footage was released by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson. . . .
There is no way for anyone thoughtful, even if he or she is a lifelong Democrat, not to notice that Sen Chuck Schumer did not say to the world that the footage that Mr Carlson aired was not real. Rather, he warned that it was “shameful” for Fox to allow us to see it. The Guardian characterized Mr Carlson’s and Fox News’ sin, weirdly, as “Over-Use” of Jan 6 footage. Isn’t the press supposed to want full transparency for all public interest events?”
https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/dear-conservatives-i-am-sorry
PS: It has come to my attention that Jane Fonda at least twice has given what I believe a heartfelt apology for her actions in Vietnam. While I am not a Vietnam vet, I believe her to be earnest and I believe she should be forgiven for those actions.
Now, her recommending murdering anti-abortion supporters/ enforcers....that's another story.
I read Wolf's article earlier today and after I read the list of things she believed from corporate media reporting and the democrats, only to find out she was lied to, I wondered if she will believe the next lie. Or, will she change the news sources from which she gets her information on major issues after finding she had been lied to so many times.
For on each subject Wolf addressed, there was correct information readily available (the truth is out there), if only she had been willing to turn her eyes from NPR, NYT, WaPo, and HuffPost, and look at the sources that sites deem "misinformation" conspiracy sites. Has she learned anything?
Good news, Cindy - she's been a conspiracy theorist like you wanted for a long time!
You should check what Naomi Wolf has been up to in the last 10 years....she's not someone you should want to attach yourself to.
My favorite is when she based an entire book on a 180-degree incorrect reading of a single historical document.
https://www.thecut.com/2019/05/naomi-wolf-interview-book-error-bbc-interview.html
Ad hominem much?
Wait, you're Sarcastr0, of course you do.
When somebody relies on an appeal to authority, attacking that authority is not ad hominem.
Naomi Wolf didn't appeal to authority. Neither you nor Gaslight0 have done a single thing to rebut what she said -- only make an argument ad hominem. See also Nieporent's similarly sad attack below.
Naomi Wolf has no standing with anyone to the right of Genghis Khan for making this 'apology.' She's apologising for believing things she did not believe.
It's not Wolf appealing to authority; it's DWB who did that.
There's nothing to "rebut" in what she said. Either she's lying now, or she's admitting she's really gullible, or both, but either way she has no firsthand knowledge of anything so there's no argument in her words. Her "apologizing" for pretending to have believed something and now pretending to believe something different is irrelevant.
I made ZERO claims about her authority.
She was ... however ... a leading light of feminism back before, five minutes ago, men in dresses started getting named female heroines. (Yeah patriarchy!!!!)
She did however admit that she was wrong ... unlike the lefties on this blog who twist themselves daily into pretzels trying to justify the NEW THING!!!! integrity be damned.
For that, even she is better than you.
No; she admitted she was stupid enough to believe Tucker Carlson, not that she was wrong.
Very off topic, and also, Naomi Wolf is deranged. She's not an example of, "Well, if even a liberal thinks this, it must be true." She's an example of horseshoe theory: far left loons and far right loons are far closer to each other than to the left or right.
I tend to think of that as the Eastwood Theory.
You're doing that thing of mixing up Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein.
This is almost ten years old. If ten-year-old aggregate information (which was already known in non-aggregate form by a private company the entire time) lets the terrorists win, then we may as well give up.
In fact, this information is so old that if it turns out that someone at Twitter had illegally leaked the information at the time, I'm not sure they could still be prosecuted because the statute of limitations has probably run out.
Also, Twitter filed the lawsuit about this 2013 information in 2014. It's obnoxious that any lawsuit stretches out for nine years. If Twitter had won they would have lost any chance to actually hold the discussion in a decent time frame.
If Americans cared about soccer....they wouldn't be American
WRT the ridiculous 11th district decision (which the 11th district has decided to review under rule 35, wonder why?) reconstruction era Jim Crow laws are not dispositive of the founders intent.
But you know what is? The Militia Act of 1792, which REQUIRED militia members to supply their own weapons.
The Whitey Bulger case — wow, Billy Bulger (executor of Whitey's estate) is still alive — he's 89!
His very generous state pension is a strong incentive to remain alive.
Speedy Trial Act apparently needs some firming up so that trials are speedier and excuses for delays are less pathetic.
The Fourth Circuit case about the creepy brother seems clearly wrong to me. FRE 403 makes evidence inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
The TL;DR of this case is, “Well, actually, we don’t care how prejudicial is, as long as it’s probative. And also, we don’t care if it isn’t probative in the slightest because the defendant offers to concede the only issue it's probative towards.”
If it was a matter of first review then I think the Fourth Circuit got it right. 403 favors admission and the defendant was seeking to only admit part of what introducing the letter and the testimony would reveal (that she was underage, not that she was his underage sister). Excluding something for being too prejudicial should be, and is, the rare exception; "oh but that's too prejudicial" is usually a whine by defendants who dislike the consequences of their actions. So dreadfully inconvenient when the jury gets to know things.
That being said, this isn't a matter of first review, it's an appeal and it's an abuse of discretion standard. I don't think the district court is so plainly incorrect that it should have been overruled here and I likely would have dissented on that ground. "Abuse of discretion" standard is meaningless if the circuit court finds the district court abused its discretion every time the circuit court thinks the district court is wrong.
Right, because the latter is unduly prejudicial. I mean, you're making the same analytic mistake the Fourth Circuit made (on the merits of the question, not the procedural aspect): ignoring the actual issue of prejudice.
That the government would find it helpful to get the evidence in is just table stakes. Of course they would, or they wouldn't be bothering to litigate it.
I don't think it's accurate to say that 403 "favors admission" in the way you're using that phrase here. 403 sets a high bar for exclusion, yes. But there's no separate hurdle on top of that once the standard is met.
That Gruyere case is pretty cheesy and was quite a food fight. But I expect the Supreme Court will overturn it because the original public meaning of "Gruyere" clearly did not include Gruyere from Finland, much less Wisconsin or Idaho.
Yeah, no. The original public meaning (from 1115 AD?) has no bearing here. This is a case where the *current* meaning is what matters.
If someone advertised "Wisconsin cheese" that was from California, they'd probably run afoul of the law. But California farmers are free to produce "Colby cheese" even though it's named after a city in Wisconsin, because it refers to a *type* of cheese.
Similarily, "Gruyere" refers to a type of cheese, not the location. If someone were to produce Cheddar cheese in the Gruyere region, they wouldn't refer to it as Gruyere cheese (indeed, it seems that the law in that area would prevent them from doing so.) So it's not *really* a geographic indicator no matter how much they protest it is.
Never heard of "sarcasm" or "parody"? Did you miss "cheesy" and "food-fight" in assessing the tone of the comment?
Groucho: " As I say, we tried to remove the tusks. But they were embedded so firmly we couldn't budge them. Of course, in Alabama the Tuscaloosa." (From Animal Crackers.)
You: "That's a city name. It is not talking about elephants or tusks!"
So, thanks for the clarification. As Groucho concluded: "that is entirely ir-elephant to what I was talking about."
"Eleventh Circuit: The Supreme Court says we need to look to history when evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws, such as Florida's prohibition on the sale of firearms to 18-to-20-year-olds. And it turns out there were a bunch of Reconstruction Era laws that forbid this exact group from possessing handguns."
Of course, those were Jim Crow laws designed to keep Blacks from having handguns, but, whatever.
Yeah, after all, slavery is part of the US's history and tradition.
Some of the laws predate the Civil War. Some are from outside the South. On its face the decision seems reasonable, as long as you take the important aspect of the laws to be the age rather than the majority of the prohibited person.
In the tax protester case, how did the 10th Circuit have jurisdiction to decide whether or not his complaint was duplicative of another case? The complaint asserted he was neither a citizen of the Inited States nor a citizen of a recognize foreign state. Accordingly, it asserted that Article III courts don’t have jurisdiction over him. (The complaint also asserted he wan’t a person, but that has nothing to do with it).
Always on topic ... considering how much Democrats love baby-killing. And they LOVE baby-killing more than they loved owning black folks (they started a WAR to keep doing that!):
"When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he promised that he would have a pro-Roe litmus test for his Supreme Court nominees.
Did Clinton lie in 1993 when he said he didn’t discuss abortion with Ruth Bader Ginsburg when he interviewed her for the Court?
Or did Clinton lie years later when, at an event with Ginsburg, he volunteered that he did discuss Roe with her and recounted how her remarks made a “huge impression” on him?
And what to make of Ginsburg’s sworn statement to the Senate that no one discussed any case with her “in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning [her] position on such case”?"
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/did-bill-clinton-interrogate-rbg-about-roe-v-wade/
Why would you think he needed to ask her about it at all?
Regarding the North Carolina case, the merits of it aside, adults with IQs of 55, which is retarded by definition, are more trouble than they’re worth. Better to keep them locked up where they can’t bother the rest of us. They're never going to be able to support themselves, and will always need care. Why should mentally defective people be our problem?
The fact that they were siblings shows that in their black heritage, low IQs are prevalent. Better to sterilize that entire family.
Sounds like a great idea. So glad you volunteered to stop bothering us. Be happy to throw away the key.
Concurrence: I agree with the conclusion, but we probably shouldn't rely on the secret evidence one side can't see.
What part of the 6th Amendment are these psychos unclear on?
Oh, that's right, the Left believes that the CIA, FBI, and the rest of the "Intelligence Community" are more important than the US Constitution.