Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal

A late-night knock at the door, unregistered silencers, and a prison-drone conspiracy.

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.

This week on the Short Circuit podcast: Live from Michigan Law, it's our Administrative Law-apalooza. With Professors Chris Walker & Nicholas Bagley and top admin law lawyer Zach Larsen.

1. In 2006, the City of Baltimore agreed to use eminent domain to acquire a huge chunk of land and turn it over to a private developer. But then, in a turn of events that will surprise everyone except those who have ever read anything at all about eminent domain, the planned development is a flop, leaving most of the area vacant, rat-infested, and generally an annoyance to its neighbors. Which stinks, says the Fourth Circuit, but doesn't mean those neighbors have a claim under the Takings Clause to challenge the condemnation of their erstwhile neighbors' land.
2. In the months following January 6th, a Navy reservist (who was convicted, pardoned for his role in storming the Capitol) buys over $40k in firearms and equipment, including devices for cleaning guns that can be modified to act as silencers. He's convicted for possessing unregistered silencers. Fourth Circuit: We don't have to decide whether silencers are arms protected by the Second Amendment, because even assuming they are, the licensing regime is presumptively constitutional under our precedent. Wilkinson, J., concurring: Silencers are wholly outside of the Second Amendment. Richardson, J., concurring: Circuit precedent requires that we reject his Second Amendment challenge, but that precedent cannot be squared with the Second Amendment or Bruen.
3. Allegation: Thinking she heard a knock at the door in the middle of the night, woman summons Harris County, Tex. constables to her home. But no one is there, and they leave—only to return 30 minutes later after getting additional calls from the woman's husband and son (who aren't there). Yikes! The son gives dispatch the wrong address and officers … enter a neighbor's house across the street? … but leave when they realize they made a mistake? … but then barge back in and wake the still-sleeping neighbors up at gunpoint? Fifth Circuit (unpublished): Case (partially) undismissed!
4. After some musings on narrower ways to resolve whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation when Dropbox shared information about a user's child porn with a quasi-governmental entity, this breezy Seventh Circuit opinion entrenches a circuit split by holding that the fine print in all the online terms of service you never read means you've consented to gov't searches of your electronic files. Some folks (and not just your humble summarist) are skeptical.
5. In 2018, a class of noncitizens files suit against DHS in 2018 over a policy involving warrantless arrests. In 2022, the district court enters a consent decree with an expiration date of May 12, 2025. Plaintiffs in 2025: The gov't isn't following the decree, please extend it. District court: Fine, but only for 118 days. Gov't: Not one day more. Seventh Circuit (over a dissent): The short extension was fine and we're going to make you read almost as many pages as there were extra days.
6. Some criminal cases raise thorny questions about whether the Sentencing Guidelines' "sophisticated means" enhancement should apply. This isn't one of them, says the Eighth Circuit, affirming the sentence imposed on a prisoner who coordinated a conspiracy among fellow inmates whereby cell phones would be airdropped into the prison by drone and used to cold-call women and persuade them they had missed their court dates, after which conspirators on the outside would meet the women at bail-bond offices to collect their "bond."
7. After Seattle police "abruptly abandoned" a section of the city in response to the 2020 George Floyd protests, protestors set up a putatively autonomous police-free zone that persisted for months—and, say these plaintiffs, resulted in violence, vandalism, and the devastation of their businesses. Is this dereliction of duty a due process violation? A taking? Nah, says the Ninth Circuit, but it maybe might have been a nuisance under state law. Case (partially) undismissed!
8. Bankruptcy mavens will be glad to see the Ninth Circuit (en banc) clear up some confusion in its case law about when bankruptcy trustees get absolute immunity. Meanwhile, immunity skeptics will be happy to hear that "quasi-judicial immunity" and "derived judicial immunity" do not extend to a trustee allegedly letting real estate deteriorate while under her administration.
9. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Wyoming high school student receives repeated suspensions for refusing to wear a mask. Her parents sue, alleging that the mask requirement compels speech and that the school retaliated against the student for her symbolic speech of not wearing a mask. Tenth Circuit (unpublished): Would have been helpful to know what message she was conveying. Case dismissed.

New on the Unpublished Opinions podcast: Judicial review in 1776. Free exercise, but what if it's not peyote? And a brick wall of freedom.