Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Feb. 21–Feb. 27, 2022)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Feb. 21–Feb. 27, 2022)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(Feb. 21–Feb. 27, 2022)
February 28, 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 issued a decision in one case for which it heard oral arguments:
 Intellectual Property: In a 6-3 opinion, the Court held that mistakes of fact or law made
in a copyright registration application do not invalidate the copyright registration if the
applicant lacked knowledge of the factual or legal error (Unicolors, Inc v. H&M Hennes
& Mauritz, LP).
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10700
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
The Court also granted certiorari to review two cases and announced it would hear two other cases
involving disputes over which it has original jurisdiction:
 First Amendment (Speech): The Court agreed to review a case from the Tenth Circuit
involving a wedding website designer’s First Amendment challenge to a state
antidiscrimination law. The designer, who has religious objections to same-sex marriages,
claims that if the state applied the law to compel her to create wedding websites for such
marriages, it would violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise
Clauses. Lower courts rejected plaintiff’s various constitutional challenges to the law,
with the Tenth Circuit holding that the state’s possible infringement of plaintiff’s free
speech rights was justified under the circumstances. In granting certiorari, the Supreme
Court agreed to review only the question: “Whether applying a public-accommodation
law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment” (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis).
 Property: The Supreme Court announced it would consider two cases next term
involving disputes over which state may take custody of or assume title to (“escheat”) the
proceeds from certain abandoned monetary instruments issued by MoneyGram Payment
Systems, a money transfer company. The central question is whether the instruments fall
under the Federal Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act,
which establishes priority rules for determining which state may escheat covered
instruments, or whether the disposition of the unclaimed property is instead governed by
common law, which would favor Delaware’s escheatment claims as the state where
MoneyGram is incorporated (Delaware v. Pennsylvania & Wisconsin; Arkansas v.
Delaware).
 Veterans: The Court agreed to review a case from the Federal Circuit to consider
whether the one-year filing deadline for 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1), which permits a veteran
to obtain disability benefits retroactively from the date of his or her discharge, is subject
to equitable tolling (Arellano v. McDonough).
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.
 Abortion: The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s preliminary injunction blocking
enforcement of a South Carolina law banning abortions after a “fetal heartbeat” can be
detected by ultrasound. On appeal, state officials did not challenge the lower court’s
ruling that the law impermissibly deprives persons of their constitutional right to an
abortion, but instead contended that the plaintiffs-abortion providers lacked standing to
pursue their challenge and that the district court erred by enjoining the entirety of the
state law. The circuit court was not persuaded by these arguments, concluding that the
abortion providers had standing to bring suit on behalf of actual or potential patients, and
that the state law’s abortion ban was not severable from the statute’s other provisions
(Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Wilson).
 Civil Procedure: The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s order remanding to state
court a lawsuit brought against a nursing home by the family of a resident who allegedly
died due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The circuit court decided that
removal to federal court was not supported by the federal officer removal statute because
the nursing home did not act as a federal officer or carry out a federal duty in its care to

Congressional Research Service
3
the deceased resident, notwithstanding the federal government’s directives regarding
nursing homes’ response to COVID-19. The court also concluded that the Public
Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act did not completely preempt the
plaintiffs’ state law claims, including those based on negligence or recklessness by the
nursing home (Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC).
 Consumer Protection: The Fourth Circuit held that borrower correspondence related to
contractual issues, such as an application to a loan servicer for a loan modification, does
not constitute a qualified written request (QWR) under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESP) and related Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations. Once
a loan servicer receives a QWR, it is obliged to refrain temporarily from providing adverse
information to credit reporting agencies regarding the borrower’s account. A majority of a
Fourth Circuit panel held that for written correspondence to constitute a QWR, it must
provide sufficient information to identify the borrower’s account and the alleged loan
servicing error. (Morgan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The Second Circuit held that the Mandatory Victims
Restitution Act, which requires defendants convicted of certain offenses to reimburse
victims for specified expenses, (1) potentially allows recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred
by victims in the course of assisting in the investigation and prosecution of the defendant;
and (2) does not permit the recovery of expenses incurred by the victim in noncriminal
proceedings, such as a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, even if
closely related to a criminal case against the defendant (United States v. Afriyie).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: In a per curiam opinion, the Second Circuit affirmed a
district court’s denial of an inmate’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1), but nonetheless declared that the provision, as amended by the First Step Act,
potentially allows a district court to grant compassionate release to a criminal defendant
who has received a mandatory minimum sentence (United States v. Halvon).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The Fourth Circuit vacated a criminal defendant’s
conviction for transporting firearms to Haiti to assist the Haitian army in quelling gang
violence. The defendant was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5), which
prohibits the out-of-state transfer of a firearm from one unlicensed person to another. The
circuit court concluded that liability attaches under the provision only if the transfer is
successfully completed. Because the defendant was arrested by Haitian police and his
firearms seized before he could ever deliver them, the court held his conviction could not
be sustained (United States v. Duroseau).
 Employee Benefits: A divided Fourth Circuit panel held that punitive damages are not
recoverable in suits brought by labor unions against employers under § 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act for tardy contributions into an employee benefit fund. The
majority held that Section 502(g)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), which permits liquidated damages to be assessed against companies with
unpaid obligations to employee welfare and benefit funds, was not applicable to the
present case, which involved paid—but late—contributions (Plumbers & Pipefitters v.
Nitro Construction Services).

Congressional Research Service
4
 Environmental Law: The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment in favor of
the U.S. Forest Service concerning the agency’s determination that a company could
resume its operations at a uranium mine site located in the Kaibab National Forest. The
case largely turned on application of the General Mining Act of 1872, which enables U.S.
citizens to acquire enforceable property rights to “valuable mineral deposits” they
discover on federal land. The court held that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and
capriciously in ignoring “sunk costs” the company incurred (i.e., costs already incurred
that cannot be recovered) when determining the company had a claim to “valuable
mineral deposits.” The court also concluded that the Forest Service reasonably relied on a
determination of the Department of the Interior (which is charged with administering the
Mining Act) that sunk costs are not considered when assessing a mining operation’s
value, and that the Department’s approach to sunk costs was entitled to deference under
the framework set forth in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council
(Grand Canyon Trust v. Provencio).
 Intellectual Property: The Federal Circuit ruled that Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act,
which bars the registration of a trademark that includes the name of a living person
without his or her written consent, unconstitutionally restricted the free speech rights of
an applicant who sought to trademark a phrase critical of former President Donald Trump
for use on clothing. While the court suggested that Section 2(c) may be susceptible to a
facial challenge as unconstitutionally overbroad, the panel did not reach the issue because
the plaintiff only challenged Section 2(c) as applied to his trademark request (In re
Elster).
 Intellectual Property: The Federal Circuit held that the Administrative Procedure Act
allowed judicial review of a Patent & Trademark Office determination that it was barred
from engaging in an ex parte reexamination of certain patent claims under the ex parte
statute because the statute’s text, statutory scheme, and legislative history lacked a “fairly
discernable intent” to preclude judicial review of such decisions (Alarm.com Inc. v.
Hirshfeld).
 Postal Service: Reversing the lower court, the D.C. Circuit allowed a suit to go forward
challenging the Postal Service’s adoption of a proposed pay package for supervisory
personnel. The circuit court ruled that provisions in the Postal Reorganization Act of
1970 authorizing the adoption of pay packages (along with related provisions concerning
consultation with representative organizations regarding pay policies) were mandatory
and enforceable directives, and the court could properly review claims that the Service
exceeded its authority under those provisions. The court remanded the case to the district
court for further consideration of plaintiff’s claims (Nat’l Ass’n of Postal Supervisors v.
U.S. Postal Service).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia

Section Research Manager

Congressional Research Service
5
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.

LSB10700 · VERSION 1 · NEW