The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal
A judge-on-judge benchslap, a pharmaceutical kickback, and a direct descendant of the Kings of France.
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: The eternal return of a qualified immunity case plus the long shadow of Judge Bork's VHS rentals.
- Come for the D.C. Circuit smackdown of a NEPA challenge to a decade-long, ultra-voluminous environmental review that the court already signed off on once. Stay for Judge Randolph's tutorial on "Knightian uncertainty," and what it means for the possibility of quantifying carbon impacts of natural-gas exports from Alaska.
- Man buys NYC house in 2014. When he goes to sell it in 2021, he discovers (for the first time) a $1,000 penalty from the city for failing to file a report about a boiler that had been removed before he bought the house. City: A third-party contractor's third-party contractor mailed the violations in 2015, so he probably got it then and should've filed suit several years ago. Man: I did not get it. Second Circuit: Good enough for government work. (This is an IJ case.)
- Buckle up for a Fourth Circuit judge-on-judge benchslap! It stems from a man's guilty plea for robbing a gas station and his plea's appeal waiver. Rather than explain what the waiver meant, detail its scope or exceptions, and probe to see if the man understood what he was waiving, the district court "decided 12 years of [his] life in 13 minutes." This is the "regular practice of the district court" knowing that it is generally shielded by appeal waivers, and is a "miscarriage of justice that cannot remain unaddressed." The man gets new sentencing in front of a new judge.
- It's no secret that IJ and Fourth Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson III haven't always seen eye-to-eye over the years. We've disagreed with his abdication in zoning cases. Been at odds over civil forfeiture. Taken differing views on judicial protection of economic liberty. And repeatedly called out his book's endorsement of "ultra-deferential judicial restraint." But on this Good Friday we are extremely pleased to bring good news of judicial engagement from him to you (and the Executive Branch) in the context of disappearing people to foreign prisons: "We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos."
- Prisoner alleges repeated abuse from prison officer. He first files a complaint with Bivens claims against several individuals but separately files a complaint with FTCA claims against the U.S. He loses in both cases but only appeals the Bivens case. Fourth Circuit: Oops! The FTCA loss means there's a "judgment bar" on the Bivens claims.
- Man built a pharmacy focusing on compounded drugs. Kickbacks involving federally reimbursed drugs are illegal. To avoid tripping that wire, the man restructured his business and converted those marketing drugs from independent contractors to W-2 employees. Marketers continued to offer incentives to physicians to write prescriptions, and the marketers received commissions tied to prescription value. Jury: That's a kickback. Fifth Circuit: Conviction and sentence affirmed, including the nearly $60 mil in restitution.
- If the government tries to fine you $57 mil, does that trigger the right to a jury trial? Fifth Circuit: Yes, even if you are a common carrier and your name is AT&T.
- Officers in Laredo, Tex. chase a driver for two hours, spike his tires, and box him in, at which point he rams one of their cruisers. Over the next ten seconds, officers fire nine rounds: three as the truck lurches forward, three more as the engine stops revving, and three immediately after. One of the bullets paralyzes the driver. District court says officers have QI for shots 1-3, but not 4-9. Fifth Circuit: Officers reasonably believed that they were still under threat from a "5,000-pound weapon" when they fired shots 4-9. QI for the entire volley.
- A lawful permanent resident facing removal asks a district court to make a determination on his still-pending naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which lets courts step in if the application languishes for more than 120 days. No can do, says the Sixth Circuit, because another provision, § 1429, bars naturalization determinations when there's a pending removal proceeding. Dissent: § 1429 ties only the AG's hands while there's a pending removal proceeding—it says nothing about courts.
- Dentist writes two hefty morphine scripts after an eight-hour dental procedure; the patient tragically ODs and her blood test comes back triple the fatal amount. The jury finds that the dentist knowingly issued an illegal prescription; he's convicted and faces a 20-year sentence. Dentist appeals, arguing that the jury wrongfully heard testimony about an earlier forged-prescription and a profanity-laced firing. Sixth Circuit: Yep, that's classic Rule 404(b) character stuff, not "intrinsic" evidence from the same criminal event. Here's a new trial.
- Ohio cop pulls over a car and sees marijuana residue inside. Driver, a convicted felon, claims he has a state medical marijuana license. A search reveals firearms. Was the search OK because pot is still illegal under federal law? Sixth Circuit: Damn right it was. Even though Congress has told federal officers they can't enforce federal marijuana law when the pot is legal under state law, it's perfectly fine if state officers enforce that federal law, even if they can't under state law.
- All law students in the past 25 years encountered the world "clickwrap" in their contracts class, an arcane body of case law that decides whether you're bound by all those terms you don't actually read when you buy stuff online. Here, the Ninth Circuit says an advice website wasn't sufficiently clear that users were agreeing to an arbitration clause for it to be enforceable. But the concurrence is where the action is, arguing for common-sense general principles rather than "rococo" rules on web design.
- Feds to Navajo family: Time to move! This is Hopi land now. We'll cover the cost, if you qualify. Hearing officer: Sorry, you don't qualify. Ninth Circuit (over a dissent): Rehearing. Hearing officer denied benefits after calling every witness not credible—for disagreeing with each other. That's not how evidence works.
- Brahimi (for those not in the know, David Lat's Twiqbal-esque portmanteau of Bruen and Rahimi) did not announce a new right for felons to possess arms. So no collateral review of a drug dealer's gun conviction, holds the Tenth Circuit. Bad man stays in jail.
- Head down to sunny Florida for the Eleventh Circuit's extremely readable explication of the quartet of SCOTUS cases that govern sentencing of juvenile offenders. The law, simplistically, is that sentencers have to consider youth in one way or another, depending on the crime. Eleventh Circuit: And, sorry, approximately 170 "juvenile lifers." Sentencing authorities in Florida do consider youth. They might be super stingy about it, but the system's not a sham, and that's all the Eighth Amendment requires.
- They say the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Unless, that is, if a cop shoots and kills the good guy with a gun because the cop thinks he's the bad guy with a gun. Does that make the cop liable to the good guy's family? Eleventh Circuit: Look, accidents happen.
- Eleventh Circuit revives (some) Helms-Burton claims over Castro-confiscated Cuban land: If a shipping company is benefitting from confiscated land, a jury can award damages to the former owners. Concurrence: I'm on board—but let's talk about that frozen chicken defense.
- If you're a French Royalist of either the Bourbon or Orléans variety, get ready for some mauvaises nouvelles. In the Federal Circuit, the New Orleans Saints (no relation) fought off an attempt to cancel their fleur-de-lis trademark by a "direct descendant of the Kings of France (Scotland, Aragon, and Castille)." This despite the man alleging that "Louis VIII King of France was the father, and great…grandfather of the New ORLEANS SAINTS (Louis IX)!" and purported evidence that "My Family's Fleur de Lys" was first used "from c. 483-508 AD."
New case! Esperanza Gomez runs a small business near the U.S.-Mexico border providing everyday, small-dollar financial services. She helps people do things like cash paychecks and send money to their families. But now a federal agency, FinCEN, is enlisting her in a new, Orwellian surveillance scheme. Typically, businesses like Esperanza's must report cash transactions over $10,000 to the feds. But, for some areas near the border, FinCEN is dropping that limit to $200. Beyond the invasion of privacy, that means hours of paperwork—literally more hours than there are in a day. Esperanza and IJ are joining forces and fighting back.
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
Re Knightian uncertainty - I have not come across the phrase since I used it myself in research pieces and training materials, e.g.,
INTRACTABILITY OF RISK ANALYSIS
Too much effort is spent analysing what are essentially unanalysable risks. A useful term in this context, named after an economist called Knight, is "Knightian uncertainty".
If you know that a fair die has 6 sides numbered 1 to 6, then on a single throw you cannot know what the outcome will be but you do know that the chance of throwing a 6 is 1/6. The uncertainty or risk is tractable or analysable. Suppose that you do not know how many sides the die has. (The writer owns dice with 4, 6, 8, 12 and 20 sides.) Or how fair the die is. Or how the die is numbered. Then it is no longer possible even in theory to determine the chance of a 6 being thrown. This is Knightian uncertainty, where the uncertainty is intractable.
Those of you familiar with the original Star Trek may recall occasions when Spock would say "captain, the chance of X occurring is 17,500.4 to 1". Most of the time X would be prone to Knightian uncertainty, so Spock's statement could make no sense unless it was a subtle Vulcan joke...
In the real world, many describable risks are prone to this kind of uncertainty: almost all unique occurrences are of this type. Rather than attempt, wrongly, to determine probabilities, etc., it makes more sense to trade on the basis that if one can eliminate event risk for no cost, one should do so. So, for example, if one has two otherwise identical bonds issued by otherwise identical corporate issuers, but issuer A's main factory is 1 mile from an experimental nuclear reactor and issuer B's main factory is not, that being the only substantive difference between them, one should take bond B over bond A
I thought those exchanges were that Kirk wanted to be told that whatever he was going to do anyway was near impossible, and that Spock just made up a number to humor him.
"All law students in the past 25 years encountered the world "clickwrap" in their contracts class, an arcane body of case law that decides whether you're bound by all those terms you don't actually read when you buy stuff online. "
For example, several people who found out the terms of service for a Wi-Fi services including giving up their first-born child. (No, they didn't try to enforce it.)
I am surprised that industries that require TOS agreements haven't devised a standard agreement that is readily accessible and then on their new device or website or whatever simply ask that consumers accept that standard TOS. rather than attaching a boilerplate War and Peace.
TOS/EULAS on online services are one thing. If you don't like them, you can stop using them.
My objection always was that for computer software that you bought at a store that came in a box, you could not see the terms before you made the purchase. You entered into and completed the contract by making the purchase of the software, and then the software company was essentially trying to modify terms of the contract after the purchase, without any consideration, so those terms should have been void.
The only counter argument I ever heard was that you could return the software if you didn't like the terms, but actually you could not. At the time, no software retailers would accept the return of an opened computer game/program, because it would have been fairly easy to install it and/or copy it and continue using it after you returned it.
Courts really got the whole concept of clickwrap wrong in those situations.
Trump appointee not concurring to their own majority challenge: impossible.
When did a Bourbon rule Scotland? They rather famously had mostly native kings or English pretenders.
Although it’s not set out with amazing clarity, he says that he’s the descendant of “Kings of France (Scotland, Aragon, and Castille), including but not limited to Phillippe Auguste II and Louis I through Louis VIII.” Those are Capetians, not Bourbons, though. James V and Mary Queens of Scots both married French royalty from the Valois dynasty, but neither union produced children. Charles I did marry a Bourbon princess who was the mother of Charles II, but since he was also the King of England it seems weird to leave that off the list if that’s what he meant. So yeah, a little dubious.
"get ready for some mauvaises nouvelles"
I'm thinking that isn't sound French. More like mauvaises notices.
I could be mistaken.
Nouvelle is correct, but it should be singular. I could be mistaken too, but i don't think I am.