The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Appeals Court Decisions
Pole cameras, hand grenades, and the debt limit apocalypse.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
Friends, the Supreme Court is conferring this very day about whether to take up Baker v. City of McKinney, which asks the question: If a SWAT team blows up an innocent person's house to apprehend a fugitive, who pays for the damage? The unlucky homeowner or the public as a whole? Defying fairness, justice, and 150 years of Supreme Court precedent, last year the Fifth Circuit went with the former. Click here to learn more.
This week on the Short Circuit podcast: A 20-word victory at SCOTUS about walking on the wrong side of the road.
- Federal employees: The debt limit is unconstitutional! First Circuit: Every time default looms, Congress swoops in and saves the United States' credit, just like MacGyver. Who's to say it won't again in the next episode? Your injury is thus entirely speculative, and your case is moot. Come back after the apocalypse and then perhaps we can talk.
- Allegation: Jamaican gang terrorizes man and his family for political reasons. He's framed him for murder; a warrant is issued. He flees to the U.S. and is arrested. Man: If I'm deported, I face additional torture! First Circuit: There was probable cause for the warrant, so no asylum. But you might have a shot under the Convention Against Torture on remand.
- After 1 a.m., Collingdale, Penn. police officer tries to pull over suspected stolen car, but the driver speeds off. Forty minutes later, the officer sees the car again, and this time it pulls over. The officer draws his weapon, waits for backup, and then all three occupants are ordered out at gunpoint. They comply. A frisk uncovers a gun magazine. A look into the trunk yields evidence connecting the group to a string of armed robberies. Suppress the evidence? Third Circuit: No. Dissent: The record does not support the officer's belief that the driver tried to evade him, and cops can't just pull people out of vehicles at gunpoint or frisk them based on a hunch.
- In which the former CEO of a Dallas-based investment firm mired in bankruptcy proceedings petitions for mandamus to recuse the presiding bankruptcy judge. Fifth Circuit: The judge's two novels do not display an impermissible bias, even though one of them (Hedging Death) involves a Dallas-based investment fund. Nor does the fact that the judge has sometimes said disobliging things about the CEO, since those disobliging things are supported by the record.
- Pro se allegations: Supervisor at Abilene, Tex. jail asks inmate to record gang member confessing to murder but declines to inform guards, who can't be trusted not to out informants. Yikes! The guards discover the inmate's recording device. A gang member assaults the inmate, leaving him with a broken nose and persistent headaches that have gone untreated. Fifth Circuit (unpublished): His failure-to-protect claim against the supervisor should not have been dismissed. [NB: Experts agree that on remand he actually has a decent shot at overcoming qualified immunity because the Fifth Circuit is on the side of the circuit split that doesn't require a totally identical prior case when the claims don't involve split-second decisions. Read all about the split-second split in IJ's petition for certiorari in Martinez v. High.]
- The Michigan Court of Claims consists of judges from the Michigan Court of Appeals. Appeals from the former court go to the latter court (although the same judges don't review their own cases). Michiganders who lost cases in the Court of Claims argue this violates their due process rights because judges might go soft on their fellow judges' rulings. Sixth Circuit: Interesting theory, although SCOTUS justices used to do the same thing by riding circuit, and in 1803 they said that was OK. Anyway, you sued the wrong people.
- In 2017, Detroit police set up a perimeter around a gas station after a hand grenade is discovered sitting next to the pumps. Oh no! There's heavy fog and a man pops into the station unaware of the police presence. Officers scream profanities at him, don't identify themselves as law enforcement, and then handcuff him despite his protestations that he is … also a police officer. He files a complaint. Sixth Circuit (2021): Could be the dept. retaliated against him for that. Sixth Circuit (this week, unpublished): No need to disturb the jury's verdicts in his favor on that claim and the claim that the handcuffs were too tight.
- Does police officers' use of a "pole camera" to film the front of someone's home amount to a search under the Fourth Amendment? Seventh Circuit (2021): No. Seventh Circuit (2024): Still no. Concurrence: On a blank slate, I'd say yes. (IJ has some thoughts on all this too.)
- Allegation: Witness reports man slamming woman's head against a metal railing outside apartment. LAPD officers arrive and find the man with scant injuries and the woman beaten to a pulp. She says she wants to press charges but changes her mind after an officer tells her that she'll be arrested if she does—because the man claimed she was the aggressor. Which is doubly false: The man hadn't said that and, even if he had, state law discourages the arrest of domestic violence victims who have been beaten to a pulp. Ninth Circuit (unpublished): The woman's First Amendment retaliation claim against the officer should not have been dismissed.
- Arizona prison inmate and "adherent to the Christian-Israelite beliefs" requests that he be allowed to eat the "certified kosher-for-Passover" prison diet, which he claims is mandated by his religious faith. Prison chaplain: Prove it. Ninth Circuit: That is exactly the sort of inquiry into the correctness of a person's religious beliefs that the First Amendment forbids.
- California woman challenges ALJ's denial of her request for Social Security disability benefits and wins. Not only does she win, but the district court concludes that the Social Security Administration's position was not "substantially justified" and awards her attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. But it holds that she cannot recover fees for alternative legal theories the district court did not reach in ruling for her. Ninth Circuit: Give her all of the fees.
- In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order directing federal agencies to include a clause in federal contracts requiring contractors to pay employees a $15 minimum wage. Five states—which sometimes act as federal contractors and had to pay higher wages as a result of the requirement—file suit. Feds: The purpose of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act is to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement, and the president can implement any policy he thinks does that. Ninth Circuit (over a dissent): He can implement policies to carry out the operative provisions of the FPASA, not any policy that's merely consistent with the law's purpose. No operative provision grants authority to impose a wage requirement.
- Class of student loan borrowers sues the Department of Education, upset about the dept.'s backlog of hundreds of thousands of unprocessed applications for borrower defense relief. As the two sides move towards settlement, the dept. produces a list of 151 schools whose students should presumptively get relief based on "strong indicia regarding substantial misconduct" by the schools. Three of the for-profit universities on the list object to the settlement and seek to intervene, arguing that including them on the list damaged their reputation. Ninth Circuit: The schools have Article III standing, but not prudential standing, so we lack jurisdiction to review the settlement. Dissent: They do have prudential standing, we do have jurisdiction, and the settlement was unlawful.
- In 2023, Colorado raised the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. (Possessing, using, or acquiring one by gift or inheritance remains legal.) Tenth Circuit: The injunction preventing the law from going into effect is dissolved. Concurrence: And please do scroll on down to page 92 for a big list of state laws (enacted both before and after 1900) imposing similar restrictions.
- Black-tailed prairie dogs and sundry friends and relations live in the Thunder Basin National Grassland in Wyoming. It's been proposed that the endangered black-footed ferret be reintroduced to reside there as well. After many years of planning, however, the prairie dogs were hit with a massive plague epidemic, leading to a revised plan for prairie dog management and ferret introduction. Environmental groups sue, claiming the plan was most unhelpful to our furry friends. Tenth Circuit: And they have a point. Go back and give a "hard look." Dissent: The Forest Service already did that.
- Montgomery County, Ala. clerk's office issues warrant for failure to appear for a probation meeting. The targeted man then meets with his probation officer, who tells him everything's cool and he's "free to go." Four years later he's arrested and held without a hearing—for 48 days. During which time his car is repoed, he defaults on a loan, and his roommate sells some of his stuff. He sues the jailers. District court: Who don't get qualified immunity. Eleventh Circuit (unpublished): We maybe would immunize you guys, but your defense counsel conceded so much stuff both below and at oral argument here that we need to dismiss the appeal. Good luck at trial.
- Terminated public university employees in Georgia sue for discrimination and retaliation under Title IX, which doesn't expressly allow private lawsuits for sex discrimination in employment. Did Congress nevertheless intend to provide a right to sue? Eleventh Circuit: No. Title VII already has clear remedies for employment discrimination. Congress likely didn't want Title IX—which handles discrimination mostly by withholding federal funding—to create a workaround for claims already within Title VII's detailed scheme.
- And in en banc news, the Fourth Circuit will reconsider its decision that it wasn't a "search" when law enforcement got a "geofence warrant" for cell-phone data from Google that placed the defendant with 150 meters of a bank and which led to his conviction for armed robbery.
- And in more en banc news, the Sixth Circuit will reconsider its decision that an Ohio school district's policy barring students from intentionally using another student's non-preferred pronouns passes muster under the First Amendment.
With winter approaching, Kalispell, Mont. officials recently shut down the Flathead Warming Center, a nonprofit homeless shelter. Asked by a federal judge where he expects people to sleep, the mayor replied, "They have to go back into the trees." But good news! This week, the center won a preliminary injunction that will allow it to continue providing warm beds (just as nighttime temps drop into the 20s) while its constitutional claims against the city proceed. We look forward to proving, among other things, that the center is a good neighbor that's being scapegoated by officials (who really should be focusing their attentions on the skyrocketing price of housing). 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
This week, somebody won a too-tight handcuffs claim.
Unsurprisingly, a cop.
wouldn’t loose handcuffs sort of defeat the purpose?
Curtailing stunts like number 13 was on of the positive achievements of the first Trump DOJ, and hopefully we’ll see it return (rather than just shifted to benefit MAGA causes instead).
Noscitur,
I don't understand what the "stunt" is. I'm asking, not arguing.
Thanks.
The “settlement” illegally forgives student loan debt, for a politically-convenient result that the administration couldn’t have accomplished without this collusive lawsuit.
The sue-and-settle method of regulation. Much more convenient than old fashioned notice and comment, and guarantees the result desired by both parties.
Yep. To expound a little more...
Interest group files a lawsuit that will be defended by sympathetic or even aligned government officer, challenging something neither the group nor the officer likes. Group and officer settle the case, agreeing the government won't do that something, or will do that something differently, etc. Boom, government changes policy without passing new laws or regulations.
In the Montana case in the afterword, the city had granted a permit to run a homeless shelter after being assured that homeless people wouldn't be a problem. Residents decided homeless people were a problem. The city revoked the permit. Under applicable law the permit may only be revoked based on false statements in the application. Regret is not a legal justification. The group running the homeless shelter did not have fair notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal on the factual basis for the revocation.
California Penal Code 13701(b), enacted 40 years ago:
#14
I did, and there's a major important distinction between the laws cited and the Colorado law at issue. The Colorado law prohibits gun sales to adults between the ages of 18 and 21. It looks to me like the vast majority of the laws cited prohibit the sale of guns to minors. The 10th Circuit panel completely ignores that the age of majority has changed in the interim.
" . . . In 2023, Colorado raised the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. (Possessing, using, or acquiring one by gift or inheritance remains legal.) . . . "
I know nothing about gun law (in general) or specific gun laws. But the last seems to be a loophole large enough to drive a truck through. "I'm only 18. Hey, 21-year-old brother [friend, etc). Here is $500. Go buy Model X gun, and then give it to me. It can be a birthday present. Hell, it can be a belated 7-months-late birthday present."
Is it really that easy to get around this law? Or is there some sort of 'straw purchaser' inquiry? If so, is that done at the point of sale? Like a standardized question on the application for purchase: 'Do you intend to keep this firearm, or do you intend to resell or give away this firearm?' Or is it done after-the-fact, by law enforcement, if the purchase-cum-gift somehow later gets attention?
In order to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, you generally have to fill out a form for the ATF in which, among other things, you affirm that you are the “actual buyer/transferee” of the firearm. Lying on the form is a moderately serious federal crime.
The ATF sez:
"Applicants who knowingly make false statements may also face criminal prosecution for a felony and up to 10 years in federal prison"
(Heh. That was the first result of my search, headlined "Federal Prosecutors Aggressively Pursuing Those Who Lie in Connection With Firearm Transactions". The second result was headlined "Few Prosecutions For Lying On ATF Gun-Purchase Form".)
It is a question on the 4473, and answering falsely is a federal crime. And it is a crime even if the recipient could have legally made the purchase themselves. See e.g. Abramski.
That said, legitimate gifts are OK - for example, my wife once bought me a gun as a Christmas present. So, as far as federal law, Mom and Dad could buy a gun as a gift for their daughter. In fact, I think that is true even for minors; I got a 22 rifle as a gift from my parents when I was 14 or so. Although I dunno who actually possesses title in the case of minors??
States with 'universal background check laws' frequently limit who the gift recipient can be. I think all allow gifts to family members. Some allow a larger set of the family. I think some might not even exempt inheritance.
You've got it. It's ambition about an opaque process, lacking any formalization, and rarely prosecuted from what I understand.
I don't think they ignored it, it is more that while minor/adult age has changed that doesn't change the fact that those less than 21 years old have a history of being disallowed from gun purchases. Since the age of minority can change, and ca nbe different for different things, there is no inherent reason that is the axis that the court has to rule based on.
With that said, I don't know why this would violate the EPC. There doesn't appear to be any real benefit to prohibiliting aquiring by purchase rather than gift or inheritance. In fact purchasing would be safer as (s)he would have to go through the paper work and background checks. This doesn't even seem like it should pass rational basis review let alone strict or intermediate (a right is at issue so it should be one of them).
It's bad faith, unless those same judges were willing to uphold a law requiring one to be 21 to get an abortion or to get married, or sign any other contract.
outside of voting at age 18, no minimum age is protected by the Constitution.
You have to be 35 to run for president.
Yes, but that's explicit. You can't deny a constitutional right to a legal adult because you think he's not quite enough of an adult, while still holding him to all adult responsibilities.
This is also explicit.
No it's not. The Constitution does not speak to an age minimum for gun rights.
States are perfectly free to set 21 as the age to do all 3 if they want. There’s nothing unconstitutional about 21 as the age for any of them.
Then why not 25? 30?
"it is more that while minor/adult age has changed that doesn’t change the fact that those less than 21 years old have a history of being disallowed from gun purchases."
It's bull shit unless they do the same for everything subject to the age of majority.
There’s no such thing as a single “age of majority” for all purposes. There are different ages of majority for different purposes – having sex, marrying, voting, signing contracts, buying liquor, buying guns, etc. There can be a different age for each.
There is a long history of states setting the age of majority FOR PURPOSES OF BUYING GUNS at 21. That ends the matter.
If you think it’s OK to argue “the world has changed and what was the case in 1868 is irrelevant today,” your argument has exactly the same justification, and exactly the same legal merit, as the people who argue that because we no longer have militias,”the world has changed and what was the case in 1868 is irrelevant today,” so there’s no longer any right to keep and bear arms at all.
The Supreme Court chose, for good or for bad, an historical approach to the 2nd Amendment. Where history had more regulation than is present today or than you would like, more regulation is permissable. It’s not a one-way ratchet. It cuts both ways.
I don't see why the taxpayers should have to pay when the police take appropriate means to apprehend a dangerous criminal. Would it be better if they let him go? The homeowner's insurance policy should cover the damage. If it doesn't, that is a problem for the state insurance commissioner, not the Supreme Court.
The homeowner isn’t a taxpayer? Why should the homeowner have to pay? Capturing the criminal is a public benefit, why shouldn't the public pay?
Because apprehending (and trying and jailing) criminals is a benefit to all of society and so the costs should be borne by all of society.
Moreover, it's effectively random which innocent bystander's house is commandeered by a fleeing felon. Hence in the broader view, having everyone pay is natural.
For the same reason the takings clause requires compensation. Which is basically what nonzenze said above, but wanted to chime in that the founders recognized this principal in the constitution itself.
I learned from reading about these cases that some insurance policies don't cover the government wrecking your house. I don't know if that is a universal rule. I don't have my full insurance policy handy, only the summary of coverage.
>Would it be better if they let him go?
Maybe, maybe not. What if he's accused of shoplifting? If they have to pay for the damage instead of saying "sucks to be you", at least they might do a quick cost-benefit determination. Or maybe if the homeowner gives them the key to the front door, the code to the back gate, and the garage door opener, they'll actually use those and won't use a BearCat and explosives to get in.