The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Amazon's algorithm, involuntary commitment, and anti-malaria medicine.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
New on the Short Circuit podcast: IJ attorney and special guest host Josh Windham interviews Anthony Sanders, your regular host, about his smashing new book Baby Ninth Amendments.
And less new but still pretty new on the Short Circuit podcast: a special episode on the unwritten UK Constitution with two sceptical scholars from across the pond.
- Man is involuntarily committed after threatening to kill a U.S. congressman. Years later, he's conditionally discharged, and though he breaks lots of rules at his halfway house, it's not obvious the violations mean he's especially likely to be dangerous to the public. Recommit him? Fourth Circuit: "While there have been profound developments in the science of risk assessment in the past three decades, they are unmatched by updated, corresponding legal guidance respecting how the inquiry ought to proceed for those under a federal civil commitment order. We thus write at some length."
- Indian sailor working for Singaporean company contracts malaria in Gabon leading to the amputation of his gangrenous toes in Rio de Janeiro before his eventual return to India. He sues under the Jones Act, alleging that when the ship put into Savannah, Ga., it failed to stock up on anti-malarial medicine. The company evades process for 15 months before suing him in India, where he is denied a lawyer and jailed for continuing his American suit. Fifth Circuit (over a dissent): The district court properly enjoined the shipping company from continuing its suit in India.
- This week on Nondelegation Doctrine Watch we journey to the Sixth Circuit, where a coalition of consumers, a nonprofit, and a carrier challenged how the FCC funds the Universal Service Program, Congress's method of ensuring all Americans can reach out and touch someone. The challengers claimed the scheme lacks an "intelligible principle" and that the outfit that calculates the program's fees is a private entity impermissibly wielding government power. To their arguments the court replied: "We disagree and DENY the petition for review."
- Man who served as a lookout during a string of armed robberies of Detroit-area RadioShacks and T-Mobile stores wins at SCOTUS! The gov't's acquisition of his cell-site records was unconstitutional. But! Due to the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, his conviction is affirmed. And, due to the lack of a full retroactivity clause in the First Step Act, his 116-year sentence—which would be a 25-year sentence today—is affirmed, says the Sixth Circuit.
- Pretrial detainee in a Cincinnati jail has a severe medical episode resulting from his sickle cell disease. Rather than send him to the hospital, jail personnel put him in a restraint chair alone in a room and then violate jail policy by insufficiently checking on him. They find him dead four hours later, and his family sues everyone involved. Sixth Circuit: Deliberate-indifference claims should go to the jury against the nurse and guard most culpable, but everybody else gets qualified or municipal immunity.
- In which the Seventh Circuit gives some grief to a district court that should have held a hearing on whether an aggrieved prisoner could have appealed a grievance decision he says he never got.
- Illinois prisoner: I spent an extra year in prison because correctional officials couldn't be bothered to do their job of approving my place to live on parole. Correctional officials: Why the Heck should we be held responsible? They're not just avoiding a mild swear, but invoking a doctrine that prevents civil-rights plaintiffs from bringing claims that would call into question the validity of their sentence. Seventh Circuit: This doctrine can be heckin' confusing, but it doesn't apply to the claims here against the dilatory officials. Those claims don't question the prolonged imprisonment itself, but just seek compensation for the bad behavior that caused it.
- Missouri police see truck leaving suspected drug house and radio for another officer to stop the truck. An officer pulls the truck over for having expired tags, discovers that the driver's license is expired and he has no proof of insurance, and soon thereafter discovers six pounds of meth. Wait a second! The truck's tags weren't expired! They were good for another month! Eighth Circuit: The initial stop violated the Fourth Amendment, but that's okay because it was an honest mistake and the guy had an expired license. Concurrence: Nonsense! The stop was fine because he was seen leaving a drug house. Dissent: The stop was unconstitutional and the drugs should be suppressed.
- In 2021, Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to online retailer Amazon, chiding them for their algorithm's recommendation of The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal. The book's publisher and authors (including Dr. Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) sue, alleging that Sen. Warren violated their First Amendment rights. The district court denies a preliminary injunction and the plaintiffs appeal. Ninth Circuit: The First Amendment prohibits the government from coercing booksellers to stop promoting a book, but this was more in the nature of persuasion.
- A handy shortcut for figuring out whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a case is to ask whether the plaintiff's name is William Rooker or Marc Feldman. If it isn't either of those, you're probably safe. So it is in this case out of the Tenth Circuit, in which the court holds that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar a class action brought by former Oklahoma criminal defendants who allege that the drug/alcohol treatment program into which they were diverted was basically just slave labor for private companies.
- And in en banc news, the Sixth Circuit will not reconsider its decision that the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 is unconstitutionally vague in how it forbids states from lowering taxes to offset the receipt of federal money. Statement Regarding the Denial: The panel was right, and the dissental is wrong. And I'm going to call it a dissental. A lot. Like almost a dozen times. Because dissental is a word. Dissent: This is a dissent. The official heading calls it a dissent. I think the petition for en banc review should be granted. And I do not use "dissental" at all.
Don and Sally Garrett live on land in Sparta, Ga. that's been in Don's family since the 1800s. Their neighbors, Blaine and Diane Smith, live on land that was once part of a cotton plantation where Blaine's great-grandmother was born a slave and that has been in the family since the 1920s. Their land is not for sale. But a private company that operates a rock quarry nearby wants to use eminent domain to build a new railroad line right through the heart of their properties and those of over a dozen others. But is a railroad spur (operated by a different private company) that only services one customer a public use? This week, IJ joined forces with the Garretts and Smiths and urged the Georgia Public Service Commission to say no and deny the railroad the authority to use the state's power of eminent domain. Click here to learn more.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
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
Perhaps the Garret case will be the vehicle for the overturning of Kelo
Using eminent domain for (private) infrastructure of roads seems a lot more reasonable than using it for the public purpose of being a private company that pays more taxes.
I would replace “a lot more reasonable” with “slightly less outrageous, but nowhere near enough to make it tolerable”.
How about restricting the definition of “public use” to government owned and literally used by the general public: a road, a sidewalk, or a government building that is mostly open to or used by actual members of the general public, e.g. library, courthouse, school.
While I agree with the sentiment: A military base is not used by the public, but I’d certainly say that taking land to make one is for “public use”.
Why should “public use” equate to “exclusively governmental use”? The government is not the public, or the people.
I’m not sure if you posted this in the wrong spot, but this is what my post was in response to:
My example of a military base is something that I believe clearly qualifies as “public use” but is most certainly not “literally used by the general public”.
Would you care to elaborate on where you think Krayt, Ducksalad, or myself suggested that “public use” equals “exclusively government use”?
“”While there have been profound developments in the science of risk assessment in the past three decades, they are unmatched by updated, corresponding legal guidance respecting how the inquiry ought to proceed for those under a federal civil commitment order. We thus write at some length.””
While I love reading this, is it too much to conclude with who WON?
It’s like a well-written story about a game between the Boston Red Sox and the Evil New York Yankees, and a game-winning home run “hit over everything that took out a windshield on the MassPike” — yes, but who hit it and which team was he on???
NB: It’s only blind, stupid, luck that a baseball *hasn’t* taken out a windshield of a vehicle going 55+ MPH on the MassPike (I-90). While there is a net (and now seats) on top of the so-called “green monster”, people *have* hit balls over “everything” and depending on the angle, the ball will land in the MassPike roadbed, which was just a 4-track railroad when the park was built in 1912.
If you click/tap on the underlined words “Fourth Circuit”, it will take you to a page offering the answers to all of your questions about what the opinion says.
As much as it pains me to ever agree with DE2, this is supposed to be Short Circuit. What you’re proposing is Circuitous Circuit.
Did you actually click on it?
I did and it’s not “a page” offering the answers, it’s 112 pages, and the initial summary is not one bit more enlightening than what Short Circuit posted. Which, perhaps, is exactly the point Short Circuit was trying to make.
Dr. Ed, after skimming it, it looks like the answer is that the court has to find that the person is or could become a danger. Violations of release conditions could be evidence of that, but are not automatically conclusive. But I didn’t read the whole thing.
The answer to Dr. Ed’s question (who WON?) is literally on the first page.
OK, IANAL, and (sincerely) I’d like to understand. What I saw was that was that it was sent back down. Is that code for the guy who was recommitted gets released?
I thought it meant more legal process with an uncertain outcome. From a lawyer’s income POV that’s a “win”, but meanwhile isn’t the guy still incarcerated and bleeding legal fees to boot?
Scratch the part about bleeding legal fees, I see it’s a public defender.
“But is a railroad spur (operated by a different private company) that only services one customer a public use?”
While I wish IJ the best of luck and agree with them philosophically on this, I think they will find that there is a 150+ year exemption for railroads. That any railroad, going anywhere, serving anyone, is considered a public good and hence legitimate for eminent domain.
The only question is if a railroad is as essential today as it would have been a century ago, now that we have trucks that are able to transport the rocks via highways (albeit at a higher cost). IDK.
But remember that back then, ALL railroads were private…
“Because the tag bore the words “December 2016,” in accordance with Missouri law, the vehicle’s registration was not expired until the first day of January 2017.”
Maine does the same thing, issuing what are essentially 13 month retroactive renewals so that you don’t have to go out on New Year’s Day and put on the new sticker (or license plate) and the vehicle essentially has a dual registration for the month, which is cross-linked in the computer system.
The officer — who, presumably, lives in Missouri and has a vehicle of his own, should have known this — although his department ought to have taught it to him. Is it too much to expect officers to have a *basic* knowledge of their state’s vehicle laws?
To consider this an innocent mistake is bullshyte — and the other thing is did the officer confirm that the truck was unregistered via the state’s DMV database? (Of course not — it would have come back valid through 12-31 if he had.)
I mean, like, now dumb are we supposed to presume cops are?
“I mean, like, now dumb are we supposed to presume cops are?”
Yes.
That seems to be the crux of any decision regarding a “reasonable error” or “good faith”
In Wisconsin (my state of residence), not all plates expire in the same month. The sticker has the year, but the month is stamped into the plate.
Being late isn’t a big issue.
The cops generally just issue a warning. As long as you get it renewed in a week, you are fine on that end.
The DMV doesn’t care as long they get their money. They don’t even hit you with a late fee.
Not sure if this has changed, but my Wisconsin plates have stickers for both month and year.
Funny how the government almost always finds it and its agents did nothing wrong or gives itself pass…
No shit. The Warren/Amazon decision is total government officials scratching another government official’s back.
No, it’s law. As awful as I think Warren is — though I think RFK Jr. is a liar and a loon — politicians are allowed to denounce other people’s 1A-protected speech. Nothing she did is actionable.
Moreover, RFK Jr. didn’t show that he was harmed, and the redress he was seeking was absurd.
Her message would reasonably be interpreted as a threat by most people who are not powerful government officials who might shrug off things like that, even if the threat was not explicit.
The judge also claimed that Warren had no power to penalize Amazon, which is true only in the narrow sense of “she can’t immediately pass a law making it illegal”, not that she could do nothing ; political influence is a real thing.
Several of these decisions and cases demonstrate once again how shitty our treatment of prisoners is in America.
” Ninth Circuit: The First Amendment prohibits the government from coercing booksellers to stop promoting a book, but this was more in the nature of persuasion.”
That’s more of a difference of degree than kind, though: Even “Your money or your life!” gives you a choice, after all.
The Ninth circuit is treating “coerce” as though it actually meant “compel”.
Exactly. There is no point at all to Warren writing that letter except trying to use her position to make Amazon do what she wants. The threat is implicit, but should be presumed when coming from a government official.