Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Feb. 14–Feb. 20, 2022)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Feb. 14–Feb. 20, 2022)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(Feb. 14–Feb. 20, 2022)
February 22, 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 click here to
subscribe to the CRS Legal Update and receive regular notifications of new products and upcoming
seminars by CRS attorneys.
Decisions of the Supreme Court
Last week, the Supreme Court added one case to its docket:
 Immigration: The Court agreed to review a decision from the Fifth Circuit instructing
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to restart the Migrant Protection Protocols
(MPP), a policy implemented in 2019 requiring most asylum seekers arriving at the
southern border to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed. DHS
announced it was terminating the MPP in early 2021. The district court ordered a
recommencement of the MPP, and the Supreme Court declined an application to stay this
order in 2021. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment,
concluding that DHS’s termination decision was arbitrary and capricious under the
Administrative Procedure Act and contravened governing immigration statutes. In
granting certiorari to review the case, the Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for
April 2022 (Biden v. Texas).
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10698
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
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.
 Consumer Protection: The Fourth Circuit held that the Truth in Lending Act—by way
of amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act restricting arbitration over residential mortgage loan agreements—barred a bank
from compelling arbitration in a dispute over its use of funds from the plaintiff’s deposit
account to pay the outstanding balance of his home equity loan (Lyons v. PNC Bank).
 *Criminal Law & Procedure: Adding to a circuit split, the Tenth Circuit held that the
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, which requires a district court to
award restitution to reimburse victims of an offense for transportation costs incurred to
attend proceedings related to that offense, does not permit a victim’s representative to
substitute his or her travel expenses for the victim’s expenses (United States v. Casados).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The Eleventh Circuit held that a criminal defendant’s
conviction for distributing crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility and
school was not a “covered offense” under the First Step Act, making him ineligible for a
sentence reduction under the Act (United States v. Williams).
 First Amendment (Speech): The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of
a plaintiff’s challenge to a Florida law requiring a license to practice as a dietician and
nutritionist, which the plaintiff claimed violated her First Amendment right to
communicate with clients her opinions and advice on diet and nutrition. Relying on
circuit precedent, the court held a state permissibly regulated plaintiff’s professional
conduct by way of a generally applicable licensing statute, even if that conduct
incidentally involved speech. Applying the forgiving rational basis standard of review to
the plaintiff’s claim, the court upheld the state law because it was rationally related to a
legitimate state interest in promoting public health and safety (Del Castillo v. Secretary,
Florida Dep’t of Health).
 *Immigration: Splitting from two other circuits, the Eleventh Circuit held that a
conviction for falsely representing a Social Security number under 42 U.S.C.
§ 408(a)(7)(B) is not a crime of moral turpitude, a category of criminal offenses that carry
serious immigration consequences for an alien convicted of a covered crime (Zarate v.
Attorney General).
 Labor & Employment: The Fourth Circuit concluded, among other things, that the
Labor Management Relations Act did not compel arbitration of a dispute over whether to
add or remove employers from a trust agreement between a union and multiple
employers concerning employment benefits (Krueger v. Angelos).
 Securities: Reversing a district court decision, the Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs’
civil suit against an online promotions company that marketed cryptocurrency could
proceed under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for soliciting the purchase of an
unregistered security. The court rejected the company’s argument that solicitation under
Section 12 requires a direct sales pitch to a particular person, and instead concluded the
provision also covered the promotion of an unregistered security in a mass
communication (Parks v. BitConnect International PLC).

Congressional Research Service
3
Author Information

Michael John Garcia

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.

LSB10698 · VERSION 1 · NEW