The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Moot beaches, sparking the French Revolution, and cash-bail advocacy.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
For over 10 years, Louisiana prison officials have held more than a quarter of inmates past their release dates—an extra 525 days in the case of IJ client Percy Taylor. Next month, the Fifth Circuit will consider whether the head of the state's prison system can be held accountable. Click here to read Taylor's brief.
- Group of folks is smoking pot outside a Washington, D.C. apartment building. Officer stops and sees one guy back away and raise his hands. Cop: Says show me your waistband. Defendant: Says "No. I'm cool" and shows waistband. Cop: Noticing some bulges, says do it again. Defendant: Runs away, throws gun in bushes, is charged with felon in possession. District court: The cop's first request wasn't a seizure, and for the second there was reasonable suspicion. D.C. Circuit: First request was a seizure, and evidence must be suppressed. First concurrence: Cops freak people out; we should construe seizures broadly. Second concurrence: Yeah, but these kinds of seizures are often OK in a "high crime area."
- Relying on advice from a state prosecutor, Rochester, N.Y. woman waits until after her (now-former) boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer, is acquitted on all charges to seek the return of $8k cash seized from her home. Alas! Though that may have been sound advice under state law, the money had been turned over to the feds, and under federal law she missed the deadline to file a claim. Second Circuit: Let her file a claim. Also, on the topic of civil forfeiture, we note that the practice of allowing gov't officials to profit by enforcing the law was a "spark that lit the French Revolution." Vacated and remanded. (This is an IJ case.)
- Allegation: For seven years, ICE officer repeatedly rapes undocumented Honduran immigrant under threat of deportation. When he eventually leaves his job with ICE, he tells her that "[i]f you go and ruin my life, I'll kill you." Four years later, after revealing the abuse to a different ICE officer who advises her to retain a lawyer, she sues. District court: But the statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act is only two years. Second Circuit: Take another look; there's an argument for equitable tolling here.
- The family that counterfeits money together stays together . . . or something. Two brothers are convicted of doing a lot of RICOing, and the gov't seeks to forfeit a few of their properties, including one that is partially owned by (a) one of the brothers and his wife (as tenants by the entirety) and (b) the other brother and the brothers' sister (as tenants in common). District court: That property is forfeited except for the wife's interest, and she gets to live in the home for the rest of her life without the gov't's interfering. Fourth Circuit: Nope, nope. The gov't is free to sell the property and split the proceeds proportionally between itself and the wife.
- Fifth Circuit (1998): "Logic and common sense dictate that if there is no duty [of an insurer] to defend, then there must be no duty to indemnify." Fifth Circuit (2023): Actually, this insurer might have to indemnify, even though we hold it had no duty to defend. Insurance bar: [Endless screaming.]
- Following a summer of hurricanes and tropical storms in 2020, Texas issues an order temporarily enlarging the state's beaches and, it is alleged, giving the public access to beachfront homeowners' curtilage. A taking or a Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment violation? District court: Hrm, perhaps, but your request for a preliminary injunction is denied. Owners: We appeal! Gov't: We know our order says it's effective for two years, but we've decided to rescind it well before that—one week before our Fifth Circuit brief is due, in fact. We can haz mootness plz? Fifth Circuit (unpublished, over a dissent): Gov't officials are famously more trustworthy, honorable, and upstanding than ordinary citizens (see p. 7), so we have every confidence in the Texas attorney general when he says that the state's eleventh-hour volte-face was totally above board and had absolutely nothing to do with manipulating the federal courts' jurisdiction. Of course you can haz mootness. Appeal dismissed. (Quaere: Would the better decretal course have been something akin to Munsingwear vacatur, which at least would have spared the homeowners the indignity of having to pay the gov't's appellate costs?)
- Supporters of a challenger to then-Sen. Thad Cochran sneak into Cochran's ailing wife's nursing home and snap a picture for an attack ad. A local lawyer implicated in the scheme is arrested, generating significant news coverage and professional fallout. He commits suicide shortly thereafter. His family sues, alleging that the prosecution was politically motivated and in retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. Fifth Circuit: 'Twas not.
- Federal judge: "I'm tired of this case. I'm tired of this defendant. I'm tired of getting the runaround. . . . This guy looks like a criminal to me. This is what criminals do. This isn't what innocent people[] who want a fair trial do." Sixth Circuit: New trial.
- Sixth Circuit: It is clearly established that police who make a warrantless arrest need to take steps to ensure the arrestee gets a probable-cause hearing within 48 hours. So no qualified immunity for these Michigan state troopers and detectives who arrested a grandma (for witness intimidation), who then sat in jail for 96 hours and was not brought before a judge.
- In 1881, Robert Todd Lincoln, secretary of war, recommended that a stretch of the Mississippi River be deepened and dredged to allow for a navigable channel for commercial vessels. Congress acquiesced. After the National Environmental Policy Act was passed in 1976, the Army Corps of Engineers examined the environmental impact of the project, leading to reams of reports and much litigation. Seventh Circuit (in a decision issued on what would've been Robert Todd Lincoln's 180th birthday): The guvvies win.
- The Bail Project is a nonprofit that advocates the abolition of cash bail and, as part of its mission, pays cash bail for thousands of people nationwide (with the aim of showing that conditioning release on payment of money is a senseless exercise). Indiana passes a law saying that "charitable bail organizations" cannot deposit cash bail for people charged with crimes of violence. Bail Project: But we pay people's cash bail to communicate the message that cash bail is actually unnecessary, so the new law violates our First Amendment rights. Seventh Circuit: Paying folks' bail is not expressive, so the law is probably fine. Dissent: Seems pretty expressive to me, not least because the Indiana legislature seems to have grokked exactly what the group was trying to convey (and responded by passing a statute to curb its efforts).
- Victim of underage sex trafficking sues the software company Salesforce.com, alleging that its business assistance to the now-defunct web-classifieds site Backpage.com amounted to knowing participation in a sex-trafficking venture. Does she have a claim? Seventh Circuit: She does. Salesforce knew or should have known that Backpage facilitated sex trafficking, even if it didn't know about this particular victim. Dissent: The law requires knowledge of a specific victim. (NB: The extent to which Backpage itself knowingly facilitated trafficking is a matter of some debate.)
- Protester tells a St. Louis officer holding pepper spray that "[i]f you put that s*** in my face, I'll f*** you up." He then says to "[p]ut that s*** in my face" and calls the officer a "p****a** white boy." He gets pepper sprayed. Unlawful retaliation for the protester's protected speech? Eighth Circuit: A jury might think so. No qualified immunity.
- Guy transferring busses in Omaha, Neb. has a blanket wrapped around him and gives some inconsistent answers to questions. Officers pull the blanket off without consent and then see a bulge in the man's clothing. They find contraband! Eighth Circuit: No reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop at the moment they pulled the blanket off as they hadn't seen a bulge at that point, so evidence suppressed. Dissent: It's not like they had to see a bulge.
- The last known doctor providing abortions in Guam retired in 2018, leaving women to use telemedicine to obtain chemical abortifacients. But Guam requires women to meet in person with a physician before having an abortion. Ninth Circuit: Zoom is a poor substitute for in-person meetings. Guam's laws pass the rational basis test.
- After the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery and gave Congress enforcement power that has since been interpreted broadly. In 2009, Congress invoked that enforcement power to pass a statute making assault a federal crime if based on race, religion, or ancestry. California man with a history of racially motivated assaults is convicted under this statute. He challenges the conviction, saying Congress lacked power to enact it. Ninth Circuit: We join all our sister circuits to consider the issue and uphold the law. Dissent: Private street violence really has nothing to do with slavery or civil rights, so Congress went too far.
- If you file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and later convert to Chapter 7 liquidation, but your home goes up in value in the meantime, does that additional equity belong to you or to the bankruptcy estate? Courts across the country are "heavily divided," but the Ninth Circuit (over a dissent) holds that it belongs to the bankruptcy estate.
- An immigration judge's ruling that uniformed Costa Rican police were not acting under color of law when they (allegedly) beat up, raped, and jailed a man who declined to deal drugs for them "defies logic and the law," says the Tenth Circuit. Concurrence: Though we should go en banc and hold the man didn't file this petition on time.
- If you're a criminal defense lawyer in the Eleventh Circuit, watch out! At least in Alabama, where qualified immunity will let officers arrest you if you refuse to let them look through your bag for your clients' possessions, even if they lack actual probable cause under a state statute against obstructing governmental operations. (Though at least you can still sue the prosecutors if they make defamatory statements about you to the press afterward.)
Do you want to litigate the kind of cases that made you go to law school in the first place? Good news, IJ is hiring! We are looking for attorneys for the Austin, Texas office and both attorneys and litigation fellows for IJ's headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. We are on the lookout for energetic and entrepreneurial attorneys to work on cutting-edge constitutional cases, stop government abuses, and champion individual rights. Attorneys at IJ bring creative, intellectually challenging cases in courts around the country. Our attorneys are active outside the courtroom as well, doing media writing and appearances, public speaking, grassroots activism, and direct advocacy to policymakers and legislators. Visit the Careers section of our website to learn more and apply.
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
Louisiana officials might be too dumb to understand or solve the problem:
STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(includes territories; 52 jurisdictions ranked)
HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
Washington, D.C. 15
Louisiana 48
COLLEGE DEGREE
Washington, D.C. 1
Louisiana 49
ADVANCED DEGREE
Washington, D.C. 1
Louisiana 46
DRAWLING HAYSEEDS
Washington, D.C. 44
Louisiana 4
Perhaps some smarter people associated with the federal government could help Louisiana perform adequately in this context (with adult supervision, or if necessary, by doing the job for Louisiana).
You know who ranks below Louisiana in high school diploma percentage? California.
What about college degrees, advanced degrees, first-rate schools, and modernity?
What percentage of the population is black?
Getting through that comment without using a racial slur is a flickering sign of progress for you. Let's hope others at this white, male, right-wing blog can learn from your example.
The Federal Circuit has issued a report regarding the complaints against Judge Newman and her ability to continue to hear cases at age 96. The report is linked in the Reuters story. It’s fairly long. A notable highlight is that one of Newman’s law clerks is taking the fifth in response to questions about her duties.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/us-appeals-judge-accused-serious-misconduct-deepening-fitness-probe-2023-08-04/
I read through the first couple pages of that transcript. Quite entertaining.
The record suggests this judge has lost enough marbles to have the game called.
Why not provide immunity to that clerk and determine what the hell that person was thinking (or trying to hide)?
(Turns out immunity was offered and the employee still was uncooperative. I hope that employee -- one of the few things the employee was willing to state was a claim of sometimes working 100 hours in a week, which suggests the employee might consider personal services to the judge "work" -- has been fired for cause. If not fired, that clerk should no longer be permitted to work with a judge regarding whom the clerk is worried about self-incrimination.)
The judge herself is a sad story. It's way outside my area, but from everything I've heard she was an incredibly well-respected judge and person. But she's 96 and not what she was, and apparently has nobody who can help her that she'll listen to.
But the clerk portion of this story is bizarre. Invocation of the fifth amendment in response to innocuous questions. I guess the clerk is worried that selective invocation of the fifth might waive the privilege? But of course nothing a clerk does should be incriminating! What the hell was going on in those chambers? I think a prosecutor should be opening a grand jury investigation of this clerk.
What could that clerk be thinking?
Could a federal law clerk embezzle . . . and if so, how much, and could it be enough to justify the risk?
Maybe the clerk is just in tribal mode, attempting to defend the judge (mindlessly loyal for reasons good or bad) or engaging in silly partisanship. Maybe the clerk lied about qualifications or something similarly odd. Maybe the clerk engaged in unethical or unprofessional conduct with respect to one or more cases.
That transcript is strange and damning. Someone should be investigating that clerk and that judge's chambers. If that clerk has a law degree, the conduct becomes even more inexplicable and a law license seems to be in jeopardy.
It is difficult to imagine how the court administrator could continue to enable that clerk to work for that judge, at least without (surprising) answers to the questions precipitated by the clerk's conduct during the investigation.
When would litigants be entitled to point to the situation in that judge's chambers -- and the involvement of that clerk in a particular case -- as cause for review of decisions? 'My case was decided by an impaired judge and by a clerk who is intensely concerned about self-incrimination concerning the judge's chambers and cases' seems a credible argument.
Well, it's sort of moot because that judge doesn't have any cases to work on, anymore!
But more to the point, it's difficult to imagine how the court administrator could continue to enable that clerk to work for any judge. (As the judges questioning her pointed out, given that this is a civil/employment context rather than a criminal one, we're free to draw negative inferences from her invocation of the 5th.)
Do you figure that lawyer knew he was wrecking his client’s career and imperiling the client’s law license (if the client has one)?
Wild guess: A third party selected and paid that lawyer.
Two words: Scooter Libby. He was convicted of forgetting about an email he'd received. I'd take the fifth....
Give me immunity and I'll cooperate. Otherwise, go f*ck yourself.
Just because I'm innocent doesn't mean you can't twist me into some process crime.
With the lynching of Republicans that is currently in vogue, *I'd* take the 5th as well, for general principle.
The Routers article raises several serious questions about fairness, including (a) why this wasn't given to another circuit to investigate (as is usually done), (b) why the findings of her neurologist were ignored, and (c) why she wasn't given a chance to respond to the report before it was released.
I'd like to know why this wasn't done. And what is usually done in academia is each side picks a voodoo scientist, and the two of them then pick a third, who serves as chair.
The summaries here are usually clear, but that of the Mississippi dredging case here fails to explain what the controversy before the court was or who the parties were.
I see we have aspiring Judge Selya's writing this week. Love the vocab quiz: decretal, grokking.
Speaking of which, I have not seen a 'Selya First Circuit Special' in a while. The commentariat needs a vocab refresher. I sure hope the Short Circuit writers deliver. 🙂
Eh, while it's a perfectly cromulent word, I wouldn't put grok in the Selya category.
On the 9th Circuit racial violence case, the statute criminalizes “caus[ing] bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person.”
The statute is upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’ 13th Amendment powers, because racial violence is one of the “badges and incidents of slavery in the United States.”
I am dubious about that in the 21st Century. But even if you accept it in a white on black crime, which this was, how can it possibly apply to violence because of religion, or national origin, or any race other than African Americans? None of those were ever subject to slavery in the U.S. If someone commits violence against someone else because he is a Jew, or an Irishman, or of the Asian race, I fail to see how the 13th Amendment could possibly authorize Congress to criminalize that.
I think it's one of those things where everyone who analyzes it in good faith realizes it's nonsense, but that they don't care about it enough to stop it, given that the defendants are rarely sympathetic.
DC Circuit stop and search case: "Second concurrence: Yeah, but these kinds of seizures are often OK in a "high crime area.""
My $0.02: If it's not OK everywhere, it shouldn't be OK anywhere.
Cops aren't likely to be shot "anywhere" -- and I'd rather having an officer do this than what Mohammad Noor did...
Sorry, but in my opinion constitutional standards for the 4th amendment should be universal.
If the situation supports a search, the location of the search should be irrelevant.
People living in high crime areas have less problem with stop and frisk than do the talking heads who go home to safe, gated communities.
They say that, but they don't mean it. Blacks will scream bloody murder about racial profiling, but then when the cops stop doing it and crime goes up, those some black "leaders" will say that the police need to "do more."
Blacks have this fantasy where the white man can fix all of their problems. It's very strange.
"Group of folks is smoking pot outside"
"Group" modifies "folks" which is plural, and hence the verb is "ARE" and not "is" because subject and verb must BOTH be EITHER singular or plural.
What I don't understand is why Terry v. Ohio didn't apply here -- the perp was acting suspiciously and the officer has a right not to be shot. The status of the individual and the weapon are to be determined later, ensuring that any gun that may exist is under the control of the officer is his own self defense.
No, group doesn't modify folks. Folks modifies group. That's the nature of prepositional phrases. If you're going to complain about this you should at least be correct.
Well then the prepositional phrase doesn't belong there.
Yes, of folks is part of the noun phrase anchored by group. But people smoke, not the group as a thing, so I would use "are" and simply push back against pedants that it is correct that way as well.
Gets tricky.
"Gang of highwaymen rob the stagecoach," or "Gang of highwaymen robs the stagecoach,"
Do we consider that the robbers are acting in concert, so the gang robs, or as individuals, who merely rob.
I'm actually getting conflicting results when I try to look this rule up online. Some indicate my view and some indicate yours.
You guys need to get together and have a talk with the spambots.
There aren't any on this article. I'm guessing that it's because the people writing here care more than the people on the main site.
"Louisiana prison officials have held more than a quarter of inmates past their release dates"
WHY?!?
Seems like a whole lot of effort and expense that everyone would want to avoid. Unless it is for disciplinary reasons -- and I see that Maine is now criminally charging inmates and tacking additional years onto their sentences upon conviction.
I imagine that the food sucks but it ain't free -- it's coming out of someone's budget, and if the guards have fewer inmates to guard, they can take naps and such.
'everyone would want to avoid'
Who would NOT want to avoid the generation of expense? Who would prefer the money for the upkeep of those inmates to keep coming in?
That would depend on your accounting system -- fair enough.
Ugh, that bail case. While I hate to agree with someone like Kirsch, the idea that paying bail is somehow protected speech is just so astoundingly dumb. Free speech absolutism has really gone off the deep end and then tunneled through the bottom.
I am sympathetic to Jackson-Akiwumi wanting to reach a good outcome in the case, but arguments that embarrassing just won't fly.
Hmmm... I bet when all those Soros-backed "woke" prosecutors refuse to do their job (i.e., prosecute criminals), it's because they're really "free-speech absolutists" -- they see the thieves, muggers, rapists, thugs, etc. as engaging in expressive activity which they don't want to interfere with! Sure, that's it!
The speech is "inextricably intertwined" with the action, and so the action must be allowed since the speech cannot be banned.
Much of what you do carries communication with it, that you approve of it somehow if nothing else. I have a difficult time imagining a case where this is not so.
Also, as with BDS, these are fair weather friends of ths concept. Get in their way, the screaming rage at its righteous applicability disappears like a mouse with a mini cupcake.
This also reminds me of the case where a court upheld banning people putting coins in other people's meters.
That was egregious, and just exposed what everybody knew all along: governments are criminal enterprises whose business model hopes you get into trouble, like banks and credit card companies.
When I was younger and not happy with a university's parking regulations, I proposed that the Student Government have a "park anywhere" day -- that we (SG) would reimburse all ticketing and towing fees. My rationale was simple, the university's resources were limited and we could afford to overwhelm them -- and I'd just read about Rosa Parks and what she accomplished.
It was pointed out to me that this would be a criminal conspiracy.
Hence I wonder about Kamala Harris and bail for BLM and how that would be different than paying towing fees.
I still would have loved to have done it -- the utter mayhem that would have caused and the administrators not being able to drive to all of their meetings....
I don't understand the bail business at all.
If the allegedly violent arrestee is granted bail, why does it matter who puts it up?
If the AVA is rich, or has rich friends, it's fine for him to go out on bail, but if he doesn't no one can put it up for him?
Looks like a violation of something or other to me.
Holding Salesforce liable for anything Backpage's customers did seems at least one degree of separation too far, but probably two.
What's next, the MyLacky.com guy that fetched the Starbucks for their staff meeting, nah, probably Starbucks themselves for not knowing who the coffee was going to.
"Cop: Says show me your waistband."
Judges who say that a cop asking you to do something makes a normal person think it's "voluntary" are either socially retarded idiots (like the Rev. Kirkland) totally unaware of how normal people think or intellectually dishonest. Which is it?
Terry v. Ohio -- a police officer may frisk if he has probable cause to believe someone "may be armed and presently dangerous."
Understood, but that wasn't the issue here. The issue is that courts frequently hold that a certain search was a consensual search or that a person wasn't detained because a normal person wouldn't have thought he was required to comply. It's complete nonsense most of the time.
That is a terrible description of Terry, given that the entire point of the case is to eliminate the need for probable cause. And you left out the other element of Terry test, which is a reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot.
I was always taught that Terry was about officer safety.
It is, but they have to have reasonable suspicion to detain someone to investigate before their ability to frisk and make sure they're safe kicks in.
Start arresting these mofos for unlawful imprisonment, or something akin to negligent homicide, negligent jailing, too-lazy jailing.
"Violation of civil rights under color of law" comes to mind -- not just 1983 but the criminal version.
Start arresting these mofos for unlawful imprisonment, or something akin to negligent homicide, negligent jailing, too-lazy jailing.
Or just impose adult supervision on people and a jurisdiction plainly unable or unwilling to perform an important and easy task.