Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Apr. 4–Apr. 10, 2022)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Apr. 4–Apr. 10, 2022)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(Apr. 4–Apr. 10, 2022)
April 11, 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:
 Criminal Law & Procedure: In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that for a plaintiff to
advance a claim against state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution
in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the plaintiff must show only that the prosecution
ended without conviction. The decision resolves a circuit split over whether the plaintiff
must also show that his earlier prosecution ended with some affirmative showing of
innocence, such as an acquittal or a dismissal accompanied by a statement from the judge
that the evidence was insufficient to convict (Thompson v. Clark).
The Court also took action on an emergency application:
 Environmental Law: By a 5-4 vote, the Court reinstated a 2020 Clean Water Act rule
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency while litigation challenging that
rule continues. When a project requires federal approval under the Clean Water Act,
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10727
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
states and tribes must certify that the project will comply with applicable water quality
standards. The Trump Administration promulgated a rule that limited the grounds on
which states and tribes could review such projects. The Northern District of California
vacated the Trump Administration’s rule and reinstated the earlier certification process.
The effect of the Supreme Court’s order is to allow the rule to remain in effect while the
Ninth Circuit considers an appeal of the district court’s decision. The majority did not
issue an opinion explaining the reasons for its order (Louisiana v. American Rivers).
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.
 Banking: A divided Tenth Circuit held that extended overdraft charges to a checking
account are considered “non-interest charges and fees” for “deposit account services”
governed by 12 C.F.R. § 7.4002 rather than “interest” charges governed by 12 C.F.R.
§ 7.4001. The distinction can lead to significant monetary differences because the
National Bank Act of 1864 sets interest-rate limits that may be lower than some banks’
charges for extended overdrafts; and the Act provides a cause of action for those charged
more than the Act’s interest-rate limit. Similar to other circuits’ approach, the majority
held that the governing regulations are ambiguous as to how to categorize extended
overdraft charges, but deferred to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s reasonable
interpretation of the regulations, which recognized that such charges are not “interest”
under 12 C.F.R. § 7.4001 (Walker v. BOKF, Nat’l Ass’n).
 *Civil Rights: Adding to a circuit split, the Eleventh Circuit held that a public entity
cannot be held vicariously liable for money damages under Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act for the purposeful or deliberate conduct of its employees. The court
therefore upheld a district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s Title II claim against a
sheriff for his deputies’ conduct. The court did, however, allow the plaintiff’s civil rights
claims against the deputies in their individual capacities to proceed (Ingram v. Kubik).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The Fifth Circuit held that under the mental competency
provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4241, a criminal defendant who had initially been ordered by
the trial court to be committed for a period of evaluation and treatment, and was
thereafter certified by the hospital warden to be competent to stand trial, could be ordered
to undergo an additional period of commitment by the district court if the defendant again
became incompetent. The court construed Section 4241 as allowing up to two periods of
commitment for a criminal defendant, after which civil commitment proceedings would
need to be instituted to compel further treatment (United States v. Ceasar).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The Ninth Circuit held that in order for a criminal
defendant to be eligible for compassionate release from imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), the defendant must have already begun his period of incarceration
(United States v. Fower).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: A divided Tenth Circuit held, in a criminal prosecution
under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) and (k) for conspiring to tamper with a witness in a federal
proceeding, the government must show the defendant had contemplated the witness’s
participation in a proceeding that was reasonably likely to be federal (United States v.
Sutton).

Congressional Research Service
3
 Environmental Law: On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit held that a
climate-change suit brought under Maryland state law by the Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore against multinational oil and gas companies should be heard in Maryland state
court. The court held that there was no basis under the applicable statutes for removal of
the suit to federal court (Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C.).
 Environmental Law: A divided Ninth Circuit held that the Department of the Interior
(DOI) violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) when it concluded
that a proposed expansion of a Montana coal mining operation would not have a
significant environmental impact. The court held that DOI must consider the potential
climate-change effects of the coal combustion produced by the mine, although it rejected
plaintiffs’ more specific contention that DOI must do so using a particular estimate of the
“social cost of carbon.” The court did not vacate the DOI’s approval of the expanded
mining operation, but instead remanded the case to the district court for further fact-
finding, while allowing the mining operation to continue in the meantime (350 Montana
v. Haaland).
 Immigration: The Second Circuit largely reversed a district court ruling that would have
required the release of records related to certain agencies’ interpretations and application
of federal immigration statutes that allow for the exclusion of aliens involved in terrorist
activity. The panel held that the requested portions of the State Department’s Foreign
Affairs Manual, along with questions used by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
to determine whether an applicant for admission falls under the terrorism-related grounds
for exclusion, were properly withheld under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
exemption for certain law enforcement records. The court remanded the case to the
district court to assess whether the plaintiff’s other record request, concerning an
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memorandum, had been rendered moot by
subsequent action taken by ICE in response to the district court order (Knight First
Amendment Institute v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services).
 Labor & Employment: In construing the meaning of “employer” under the
Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), the Third Circuit joined every
other circuit to consider the issue, holding that the term has the same meaning as is used
in Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which the MPPAA amends.
Under that standard, an employer is an entity obligated to contribute to a pension plan
either as a direct employer or on behalf of one. In this case, because the plaintiff
contractor was considered an employer under MPPAA, the contractor would be
compelled to resolve a dispute about a pension plan withdrawal fee through arbitration,
rather than in federal court (J. Supor & Son Trucking & Rigging Co. v. Trucking
Employees of New Jersey Welfare Fund).
 Labor & Employment: A divided Fifth Circuit vacated a district court’s preliminary
injunction halting implementation of an executive order generally requiring federal
employees to be vaccinated against the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The
majority concluded that the Civil Service Reform Act precluded the district court from
exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the legal challenge to the order (Feds for
Medical Freedom v. Biden).

Congressional Research Service
4

 *Labor & Employment: Adding to a circuit split, the Eighth Circuit held that a plaintiff
undergoing a background check did not have standing to pursue claims against an
employer for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), when the employer did not
provide her with a copy of her consumer report or other required information before
taking adverse employment action based on the report. The Eighth Circuit held that these
procedural violations did not give rise to a harm sufficient to meet constitutional standing
requirements. Among other things, the panel concluded that (1) FCRA does not confer on
an applicant a right to explain negative but accurate information found in a consumer
report to a prospective employer; and (2) assuming plaintiff’s contention that the
background check went beyond the scope of the authorization she gave to conduct a
background check, the plaintiff still failed to plead a privacy injury from that search
sufficient to meet standing requirements (Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc.).
 Tax: The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a Tax Court decision holding that
payments made to a Russian scientist working as a researcher at a Department of Energy
facility were exempt from U.S. taxation under the U.S.-Russia Tax Treaty. Under the
Treaty, “salaries, wages, and other similar remuneration” of covered nationals are taxable
by the other country for work performed there, while funds in the form of a “grant,
allowance, or other similar payments” are not. The panel held that these categories are
exclusive, and concluded that a key difference is that taxable work involves a substantial
quid pro quo element, while nontaxable grants generally do not. The panel remanded the
case to the Tax Court to assess the appropriate classification for the payments made to the
scientist (Baturin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia

Deputy Assistant Director/ALD

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.

LSB10727 · VERSION 1 · NEW