Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Jan. 10–Jan. 16, 2022), Part 2

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Jan. 10–Jan. 16, 2022), Part 2

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(Jan. 10–Jan. 16, 2022), Part 2
January 18, 2022
The federal courts issue hundreds of decisions every week in cases involving diverse legal disputes. This
Sidebar series selects decisions from the past week that may be of particular interest to federal lawmakers,
focusing on orders and decisions of the Supreme Court and precedential decisions of the courts of appeals
for the thirteen federal circuits. Selected cases typically involve the interpretation or validity of federal
statutes and regulations, or constitutional issues relevant to Congress’s lawmaking and oversight
functions.
Some of the cases identified in this Sidebar, or the legal questions they address, are examined in other
CRS general distribution products. Members of Congress and congressional staff may contact the authors
to subscribe to the CRS Legal Update newsletter and receive regular notifications of new products
published by CRS attorneys.
(This week’s Congressional Court Watcher is divided into two parts because of the number of notable
decisions issued over the past week. This Sidebar [Part 2] discusses notable decisions of the courts of
appeals during the week of January 10 to January 16, 2022, while a companion Sidebar, Part 1, addresses
Supreme Court decisions from that period.)
Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Topic headings marked with an asterisk (*) indicate cases where the appellate court's controlling opinion
recognizes a split among the federal appellate courts on a key legal issue resolved in the opinion,
contributing to a non-uniform application of the law among the circuits.
 Bankruptcy: In vacating a bankruptcy court’s award of attorneys’ fees in Chapter 7
proceedings, the Fifth Circuit interpreted Section 330(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which
governs the compensation provided to professionals whose fees are paid by the
bankruptcy estate. The panel ruled that Section 330(a) authorizes the award of attorneys’
fees only for services that require legal expertise and that a trustee would not normally
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10688
CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
perform without an attorney’s guidance. Here, the panel held that the bankruptcy court
failed to determine which services provided by the attorney actually required legal
expertise, and it remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings
(Sylvester v. Chaffe McCall, LLC).
 Communications: The Fourth Circuit held that a provision of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, permitting a prevailing party to recover attorneys’ fees against the
violator of the Act, allows the prevailing party to collect attorneys’ fees and expenses it
incurs while pursing the post-judgment collection of awarded fees (SkyCable, LLC v.
DIRECTV, Inc.).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The First Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision
denying an inmate’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A),
as amended by the First Step Act. The panel joined four other circuits in holding that §
3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional in nature, meaning that a
court need not definitively decide that the defendant satisfied the provision’s exhaustion
requirements before considering the merits of the inmate’s claims. The panel further held
that the provision does not grant a district court authority to change an inmate’s place of
confinement (United States v. Texeira-Nieves).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: A divided First Circuit panel held that when the
defendant’s possession of a gun for sale attracted a buyer, and the defendant used this
opportunity to entice the buyer to purchase drugs from him, the “in furtherance of”
element of a mandatory minimum sentence was satisfied. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) sets a
mandatory minimum sentence for a person who, “during and in relation to any . . . drug
trafficking crime . . . uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime,
possesses a firearm” (United States v. Ramirez-Frechel).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The Ninth Circuit joined several circuits in recognizing
that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a) for assaulting a mail carrier with the intent to
steal mail, while placing the carrier’s life in jeopardy through the use of a dangerous
weapon, is categorically a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3), resulting in
the offender being subject to a mandatory minimum sentence and potentially facing other
legal consequences (United States v. Buck).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The Ninth Circuit ruled that a third party intervening in a
criminal forfeiture proceeding is limited under 18 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6) to raising claims
that it has a superior or bona fide interest in the forfeited property. The intervenor cannot,
however, re-litigate whether the criminal defendant has a forfeitable interest in the first
place (United States v. Houseco., LLC).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: In deciding whether the petitioner engaged in criminal
conduct rendering him removable under immigration laws, the Ninth Circuit considered
the mental state necessary for criminal liability to attach under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), which
makes it a criminal offense to “maliciously” damage or destroy certain property by means
of fire or an explosive. The panel held that a defendant must have (1) engaged in an
intentional act that resulted in damage or destruction of covered property and (2) been
subjectively aware of the risk that his actions would result in harm to the property
(Togonon v. Garland).
 Education: The First Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a suit asserting that
Rhode Island’s alleged failure to provide public school students with an adequate civics
education violated students’ constitutional rights. Among other things, the panel affirmed
the lower court’s conclusion that an adequate civics education is not a fundamental
constitutional right. The panel observed that courts had only recognized claims relating to

Congressional Research Service
3
a fundamental right to education when there had been a total deprivation of a minimally
adequate education, and the plaintiffs’ allegations did not rise to that level. The court also
observed that Rhode Island’s reasons for deemphasizing civics education in relation to
other subjects—premised on resource constraints and competing educational demands—
satisfied the forgiving rational basis standard necessary to turn away the plaintiffs’ equal
protection and substantive due process claims (A.C. by Waithe v. Mckee).
 *Labor & Employment: A divided First Circuit panel affirmed a district court’s denial
of an employer’s motion to dismiss “opt-in” claims brought by out-of-state current and
former workers who joined the named plaintiffs’ suit for unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Joining most circuits, the panel majority held that
the FLSA’s collective action procedures enable opt-in plaintiffs to become parties to the
action upon filing consent forms, without the district court first addressing whether they
are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs. The panel majority also rejected the
employer’s Fifth Amendment and jurisdiction-related challenges to inclusion of the out-
of-state plaintiffs, resulting in a split with the Sixth and Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(k). The majority concluded that the conditions
imposed by Rule 4(k) on the service of the summons needed to establish personal
jurisdiction over the defendant apply only at the time of initial service; they do not need
to be satisfied for any additional claims or plaintiffs added to the case (Waters v. Day &
Zimmermann NPS, Inc.).
 Tax: On appeal from the Tax Court, the D.C. Circuit held that subject-matter jurisdiction
did not exist over petitioner’s claim that her request for a whistleblower award was
improperly rejected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Whistleblower’s Office.
Although 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(4) provides the Tax Court with jurisdiction to review a
“determination regarding” a whistleblower award, the circuit panel held that the provision
does not confer the Tax Court with jurisdiction over the IRS’s threshold rejection of an
award request, when the whistleblower provided only vague or speculative information
and the agency did not take action against the targeted taxpayer (Li v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue).
 Transportation: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a products liability suit
against a school bus manufacturer alleging liability under state law, holding that it was
preempted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard governing school bus manufacturers. The panel held that the
Standard, which requires that school buses be equipped with emergency exits that are
manually operable, preempts a state common law duty to include an automatic lock and
safety device because it would be impossible for a manufacturer to comply with both
state and federal requirements (Estate of Miranda v. Navistar, Inc.).
 Transportation: The Tenth Circuit held that the Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act (ICCA), which establishes an exclusive federal scheme for the economic
regulation of railroad transportation, preempted an Oklahoma statute intended to prevent
trains from blocking vehicular traffic, including emergency vehicles, for extended
periods. Although Oklahoma argued that the preemptive effect of the ICCA was
circumscribed by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) to the extent it addressed rail
safety issues, the circuit court declined to reach this issue after concluding the state law
addressed public safety issues, not rail safety issues addressed by the FRSA (BNSF
Railroad Co. v. Hiett).

Congressional Research Service
4
Author Information

Michael John Garcia
Juria L. Jones
Section Research Manager
Section Research Manager

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10688 · VERSION 1 · NEW