The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Instagram foxes, kosher Pickles, and maritime riches.
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 Bound By Oath podcast: We journey back to a lost world, the world before zoning. Specifically, a trio of historic property rights cases, including an attempt to wipe San Francisco's Chinatown off the map.
- In which the D.C. Circuit upholds the FEC's deadlocked-dismissal of complaints filed by End Citizens United PAC (which are of the variety you'd expect of a PAC by that name). Dissent: This prosecutorial discretion deference kind of doesn't make sense without a majority of commissioners
- Wedding-dress designer Hayley Paige Gutman is in a long-running contractual dispute with her former employer, JLM Couture. She locked them out of her social-media accounts, which she set up on her own accord, using her personal email and cell phone number. District court: The issue of social-media-account ownership is novel, so here's a six-factor test to figure it out (with a W for JLM). Second Circuit: No need to reinvent the wheel; property is property, whether fox or Instagram profile. Remand to apply traditional principles of property law.
- In Dr. Zhivago, Alexander Gromeko, upon learning that his house has been taken "in the name of the people," screams, "Very well – I'm one of the people!" before his, um, comrades restrain him from breaking in. Well, in the Third Circuit 18-20 year olds can now exclaim the same thing, at least vis-à-vis the right to keep and bear arms.
- Police stop U.S. citizen and immigrant from Sierra Leone and find $71,613 in cash. Police: That's nice, we'll take it. Driver: Actually it's my entire life savings I made from my cash-only car sales business. Police: A likely story, tell it to Customs and Border Protection. Which he does pro se. CBP: Not likely. He then gets pro bono representation from Kirkland & Ellis and files suit and . . . within two months gets all his cash back (more than two years after it was taken). But can he then sue for damages? Third Circuit: The process is the penalty. And so is sovereign immunity.
- Several Brazoria County, Tex. wells are subject to a lease under which a gas-producing company must pay royalties to a trust from gas produced from the land and sold or used off-premises while getting free use of gas for operations on lease premises. But what about gas used in off-lease processing services necessary to make the gas saleable? Fifth Circuit: Whatever we say would be an Erie guess, "more divining than discerning." SCOTX can tell us.
- Man sentenced to 96 months in prison for illegally possessing a gun, quite a bit above the 57-71 months of the guidelines for his situation. There were no victims, two witnesses testified about how the man's presence made their neighborhood worse, and the court referenced arrests for which there was never a conviction. Fifth Circuit: Affirmed. District courts may allow all kinds of testimony relevant to sentencing, including non-victim witness testimony and details of previous arrests.
- Texas police attempt to pull over driver who turned left at a stop sign without signaling. The driver doesn't pull over but continues to his house. His estate's complaint says he was then shot dead even though he attempted to comply with police and posed no threat to them. Fifth Circuit: But the body camera footage shows he in fact leapt from the car and pointed a gun at both officers. "Whether we apply the standard of 'a reasonable officer on the scene' or that of a math Ph.D.'s thesis advisor," the officers acted reasonably.
- "I haven't seen Evil Dead II yet" queries John Cusack to Jack Black when probing the meaning of that last word. Similarly, we might inquire what the Fifth Circuit means when it examines whether the Supreme Court has implicitly overruled Humphrey's Executor (1935), the case blessing "for cause" employment protections for appointees to independent agencies. The court's bottom line: "at least not yet."
- Texas law requires any bookstore or other vendor selling to public school libraries to rate its materials according to their "sexually explicit" and "sexually relevant" content. Vendors sue. Texas: This is normal stuff, like a nutrition label. Fifth Circuit: Nutrition labels are factual and uncontroversial. This whole business is neither. Preliminary injunction upheld.
- City of Mineral Wells, Tex., lures munitions manufacturer to set up shop with $150K in financial incentives. But then boom goes the dynamite! City revokes the "gift," claiming it violates the Texas Constitution. Manufacturer: This aggression cannot stand! Fifth Circuit: This actually is a case where a constitution prohibits a certain kind of corporate welfare and the state courts actually enforce it. It's the contract's Waterloo. Dissent: Why can't the nuclear option of "public purpose" work here like everywhere else?
- Southwest suffers a "massive computer failure" resulting in a 3-day disruption with 475,839 customers enduring a cancelation or major delay and an estimated $77 mil in losses. Southwest: Hey, doesn't that recent "cyber risk" policy cover this? Indeed, some insurers pay, but an excess insurer does not so Southwest sues. District court: Meh, this is all about recouping points and miles. Summary judgment for the insurer. Fifth Circuit: It's a little more complicated than that. You're now free to move about the case on remand.
- Iowa man who goes by the moniker "Pickles" is arrested for arson. Though the sentencing guidelines suggest a range of 60 to 63 months, the district court sentences him to 84 months. But the feds think even that is too good a dill. Eighth Circuit: It's kosher.
- Dutch, a police K9, is playing fetch in the backyard with his handler when a guest steps outside. Before the handler can secure him, Dutch attacks the guest. She later sues, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Eighth Circuit: Dutch was off-duty and no one ordered him to bite. "This is really a negligence case" that belongs in state court.
- In 1851, Congress enacted the Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act to "encourage the development of American merchant shipping" by limiting the liability of vessel owners for accidents that occur without their privity or knowledge to "the value of the vessel and pending freight." Ninth Circuit: It also applies to jet skis, which is not new or even disputed in this appeal about the power of federal courts to enjoin state-court proceedings after a jet ski owner has availed itself of the Limitation Act, but it is both surprising and almost the only part your summarist understood.
- Two maritime cases in one week?! It's an embarrassment of riches. It's also bad news for these guys found with more than 1,000 kilos of cocaine on their go-fast boat off the coast of Ecuador. Per the Ninth Circuit, Congress did not overstep its constitutional authority to "define and punish . . . Felonies committed on the high Seas" or international law when it enacted the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, under which the boat was deemed stateless and, hence, subject to U.S. jurisdiction. (And flashback to a similar "honkload of stateless cocaine" mentioned in this newsletter three years ago.)
- Just after George Floyd's murder, protestors in Mobile, Ala., block a highway and police deploy tear gas. In the chaos one protester smashes a police car window with a baseball bat. She's convicted in federal court of "impeding law enforcement during a civil disorder." But is the statute within Congress's Commerce Clause power? Eleventh Circuit: Yikes, this is actually kind of a close one. But highways carry lots of commerce, right?
- An in en banc news the D.C. Circuit (over the objections of four judges) will not rehear its decision that orders to enforce a warrant seeking information from the account @realDonaldTrump were constitutional and proper.
- And in more en banc news the Fourth Circuit will take en banc three Second Amendment cases, even though only one of them has had a panel opinion in its present round of briefing.
- And in further en banc news the Ninth Circuit will reconsider its decision (based on earlier precedent) that the denial of motions made under California's anti-SLAPP law are appealable on an interlocutory basis.
It was a Supreme week for property rights and for IJ. On Tuesday, January 16, Senior Attorney Bob McNamara argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of a fourth-generation Texas farmer, Richie DeVillier, whose farm was flooded by the state. Our position is simple: If a state takes your property and doesn't pay for it, you should be able to sue. Lawyers for the State of Texas and the Biden Administration disagreed. We're cautiously optimistic and looking forward to a decision by June.
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
I thought the jet ski case would allow me to commit the perfect murder. Alas, federal law only protects me if I am an innocent owner.
Congress has also protected car owners from vicarious liability, but only a special class of car owners: banks and other lessors. If you let your kid drive your car into a china shop you are still on the hook.
It’s also not a defense to criminal liability at all, and in fact vessel owners are subject to heightened criminal liability when death occurs. See 18 U.S.C. § 1115.
Incidentally; jetski is the Polish word for jet ski.
That's interesting. I didn't know that. But I don't think I will in the future; it's a little too close to nothing new.
Which is why it is sometimes better to lease than to own.
If California's anti-SLAPP law applies in federal court it must be treated as substantive rather than procedural. As a substantive rule it grants a right not to be sued and an interlocutory appeal is appropriate.
Judge McKeown, concurring: "My particular objection is that a motion based on California’s anti-SLAPP statute is wholly grounded in that state’s procedural law, yet we have infused it with substantive significance."
I had a case in CA federal court in which an anti-SLAPP motion was brought. It's a complete muddle, and the Ninth Circuit has botched.
The CA anti-SLAPP requires a motion to be brought within 60 days. The 9th Circuit held this is pre-empted in federal court, because the standard is the same as a summary judgment motion, which can be brought at any time.
The CA anti-SLAPP statute also provides for attorney's fees if the moving party prevails.
So in our case, our adversary waited until near the end of discovery to bring the motion, AND claim fees under the statute. Which they otherwise would not be entitled to, and which they would not get in CA state courts.c
I love getting to read this every week.
"Just after George Floyd's murder..."
I don't think it's customary to refer to overdose cases as murders, but in any case your virtue has been noted.
Virtue signaling by accusing other people of virtue signaling - you're soaking in it!
To be fair, I don’t think virtue is what Kleppe is signaling.
HE thinks it's virtue.
You do know that someone got convicted of murdering him, right? It was kind of a big deal at the time.
Well if he was convicted then it's obviously real.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, if not enough to convince a math Ph.D.'s thesis advisor. (I've met such thesis advisors; they only require that level of proof for math, and in practice might be less reasonable than a reasonable police officer in confronting a suspect.)
They convicted 30 people of witchcraft in Salem....
I do believe some folks here (maybe not you) patiently explained a few weeks ago that OJ was still a murderer notwithstanding the verdict. So no principled reason why we can't substitute "what we know really happened" in the other direction as well.
Except for 1) the asymmetric burden of proof, and 2) the fact that you are discarding a lot of experts to believe an unsupported and unlikely narrative that aligns with your priors.
Spare me the I-never-really-practiced-law-and-pretend-I-never-talk-to-anyone-who-does wide-eyed reverence.
Meeting an asymmetrical burden of proof with an indescript threshold is like throwing chicken bones. Can't be objectively measured, and thus nearly impossible for appellate courts to second-guess beyond the most egregious cases. Everyone understood Chauvin needed to go down to stop the destruction of the city, and that's what happened -- from bullying the ME into revising his autopsy findings that originally said there was no sign of neck compression all the way to the verdict.
As for your revered "experts," I hate to be the one to tell you that all parties that can afford 'em have 'em, and they all just happen to -- quite amazingly -- opine in alignment with that side's interests 99.999999% of the time.
The Floyd jury "discarded" (if that's the term you prefer) the ones they didn't agree with -- as well as a boatload of inconvenient fact testimony.
He didn't die from his drug overdose before he died from cop overdose. Doesn't matter if he would have died from his drug overdose one minute later, an hour later, or a decade later. He died from overdose of cop.
Whether the cop intended to kill him or not, who knows? Whether he intended to commit suicide by drugs or cop, who knows? But he died from overdose of cop, not drugs.
Bullshyte. "I can't breathe" is a symptom of fentanyl overdose!
Except it isn't.
By the time you are to the point where you are experiencing dyspnea from a narcotic, you are no longer conscious. This is particularly true for fentanyl with its rapid onset and extreme sensitivity to the dosage.
To be able to thread the two you either have to have an anesthesiologist present (I will throw a bone as a physician and not mention CRNA's) or be "Powerball Level" lucky.
Is that your expert medical opinion as a janitor?
No, as a fentanyl user.
Now go have fun with THAT....
And figure out what MGB stands for while you are at it.
"But he died from overdose of cop, not drugs."
"I can't breathe," the man who could clearly breathe said.
Yes, what dishonesty from the guy who died of cardiopulmonary arrest not long after that.
You could have stopped after the third word.
People can believe Chauvin is not a murderer, despite having been convicted of murder, just as they can believe Donald Trump won the 2020 election, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Its cause is the same infallible belief in the malleability of reality.
I didn't understand the John Cusack reference because I haven't seen that movie yet.
Iowa man who goes by the moniker “Pickles” is arrested for arson. Though the sentencing guidelines suggest a range of 60 to 63 months, the district court sentences him to 84 months. But the feds think even that is too good a dill. Eighth Circuit: It’s kosher.
As usual, government keeps gherkin people around.
Yeah, it's pretty much their bread and butter.
They relish that kind of thing.
But he gets a discount for the fire roasted peppers...
Well, in the Third Circuit 18-20 year olds can now exclaim the same thing, at least vis-à-vis the right to keep and bear arms.
I've always had a problem with trying 19-year-olds as adults for minor in possession of alcohol. This strikes me as kinda being half pregnant -- and a due process issue in that if the kid isn't old enough to be responsible enough to *have* the alcohol, then how can he/she/it be old enough to be responsible for *having* it? It's a real problem in higher education because you can't supervise undergrads the way you really need to -- you can't be present when they are drinking because you have to bust them for that. And I personally think that the reason we have the problems with drugs we do now -- and didn't have 30 years ago -- is in part because of the crackdown on alcohol.
This is not the type of issue that is going to have enough money behind it to push it into court, but has anyone ever raised it?
And the other thing I always expected to see but never did was a dram act case involving enhanced liabilities because the driver was a minor, hence the greater harm of providing the dram of poison.
I've also seen 19 year olds who give 19 year old buddies beer "providing alcohol to minors." That also seems absurd, like prosecuting a 16 year old for statutory rape, in states that don't have age gap requirements.
The mother of the person killed in the jet ski accident wins the right to sue the owner of the jet skis after her second appeal. But with the Shipowners Limitation of Liability Act capping damages at $5,000, the value of the jet skis, I suspect she is already deeply in the hole to her attorney before any actual trial proceedings have even begun. Perhaps she is suing out of principle.
The federal court had issued a broad injunction that was interfering with her lawsuit against other defendants.
2 year olds are also members of the people. Does it follow that they are entitled to play with guns?
Are 2 year olds adults? Or are you being disingenuous and deceitful in your objections, as always?
I believe the punchline to that joke is ...now we're only haggling over price.
The question of what an adult is is generally a matter of state law. 18 to 21 year olds have long been considered adults for some purposes but not for others. There’s a long history of letting each state decide each issue its own way. Why should federal judges get to decide that they can have guns but not alcohol or cigarettes?
"guns ... alcohol ... cigarettes"
The ATF trifecta!
In BoR protections, one of those is not like the others.
If you think the text of the constitution is relevant, there was a specific constitutional amendment regarding the age for voting. If it follows from the penumbras and emanations judges discern in the interstices of the Bill of Rights when they roll the Constitution up into a big enough fattie and smoke it, that the age of majority has to be 18 for all constitutional rights, then why did anyone bother to pass a specific amendment regarding the age for voting? And why did that constitutional amendment not mention anything else?
"If you think the text of the constitution is relevant, "
I do think that the text of the constitution matters when deciding what is and is not constitutional.
"...there was a specific constitutional amendment regarding the age for voting."
I which case the text of the constitution matters for voting age.
In an effort to reduce graffiti, some states don't let young people buy spray paint (in WA the age is 18). What does the constitution say about that? Nothing[1]. So the federal courts don't have a lot to say about those laws. But the constitution does have something to say about other things, like access to arms, and whether troops can be quartered in your house - and so the federal courts do have a role in deciding those issues.
[1]At least directly. OTOH, if you want to get a ruling on whether spray paint restrictions violate equal protection or the first amendment protects a right to spray paint boxcars, then the federal courts would be the place to go.