Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (April 18–April 24, 2022)
Legal Sidebari
Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(April 18–April 24, 2022)
April 25, 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 five cases for which it heard oral arguments:
Criminal Law & Procedure: In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court held that when a state
court has ruled on a prisoner’s challenge to his or her conviction, a federal court cannot
grant habeas relief unless it applies both the test set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson and
the one established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (Brown v.
Davenport).
Sovereign Immunity: In a unanimous opinion, the Court held when a federal court hears
a state law claim against a foreign government or instrumentality under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, it must apply the same choice-of-law rules that apply in
similar suits against private parties. In this case, that choice-of-law rule was provided by
the law of the forum state, not federal common law (Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza
Collection Found.).
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10732
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
Speech: By a 5-4 vote, the Court held that a city’s sign code, which sets different rules
for signs advertising things at the location and signs advertising things off-premise, was a
facially content-neutral regulation under the First Amendment that was not subject to
strict scrutiny review. The Court remanded the case to the lower court to determine
whether the distinction was drawn for non-content neutral purposes and whether the
distinction was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest (City of
Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advertising of Austin, LLC).
Tax: In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court held that the 30-day time limit to petition the
Tax Court to review a collection due process hearing—an Internal Revenue Service
proceeding at which a taxpayer can challenge a proposed levy to collect tax debts—is not
a limit on federal-court jurisdiction and therefore is subject to equitable tolling (Boechler,
P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue).
Territories: In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not
require Congress to make Supplemental Security Income benefits available to residents
of Puerto Rico to the same degree as those benefits are made available to residents of the
states (United States v. Vaello Madero).
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: The Seventh Circuit held that a city’s possessory lien on a vehicle it
impounded due to unpaid tickets should be characterized as a “judicial lien” under the
Bankruptcy Code—that is, a lien “obtained by judgment, levy, sequestration, or other
legal or equitable process or proceeding”—making it avoidable in bankruptcy under 11
U.S.C. § 522(f) (In the Matter of Mance).
Civil Liability: On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed a
district court’s preliminary injunction that prevented LinkedIn, a professional networking
website, from blocking a competitor from collecting and using information that LinkedIn
users share in their public profiles. The panel concluded that the plaintiff had raised
serious questions about whether LinkedIn could invoke the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act to preempt the plaintiff’s tortious interference claim (hiQLabs, Inc. v. LinkedIn
Corp.).
Criminal Law & Procedure: In consolidated appeals, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a
district court’s decision not to suppress evidence acquired through a wiretapping order
against several criminal defendants in a drug tracking conspiracy. The court held that
wiretap recordings were sealed consistent with the requirements of Title III of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, even though the judge who authorized the
wiretap had not issued a separate, written sealing order. The court also decided that any
delay in sealing the wiretap recordings was not impermissible, relying in part on the lack
of a tactical advantage to the government or prejudice to the defendants caused by the
delay (United States v. Stowers).
Environmental Law: On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed
a district court’s order remanding climate-liability suits brought by local governments to
California state court. At the time of removal, the complaints only alleged violations
under state tort law, specifically that the defendant energy companies’ extraction of fossil
fuels and other activities were a substantial factor in causing global warming and sea
Congressional Research Service
3
level rise. The panel agreed with the district court that the federal statutes cited by the
defendants did not provide federal courts with subject-matter jurisdiction over the
complaints (County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.). (As noted in a prior issue of the
Congressional Court Watcher, the Fourth Circuit similarly concluded earlier this month
that a climate-change suit brought under state law by the City of Baltimore against certain
oil and gas companies should be heard in Maryland state court.)
Environmental Law: The Ninth Circuit agreed with a district court that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service did not violate the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) or other statutes when it limited certain hunting practices in the Kenai
National Wildlife Refuge. The panel concluded that ANILCA preserved the federal
government’s plenary power over Alaskan public lands, so it made no difference that
Alaska had approved the hunting practices. The panel also held that a 2017 congressional
joint resolution related to Alaska hunting practices did not apply to the rule at issue.
Finally, the court rejected various arguments that the Service’s rule was invalid under the
Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (Safari Club
Int’l v. Haaland).
Environmental Law: The Ninth Circuit vacated the Environmental Protection Agency’s
denial of a petition under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to
cancel registration of the pesticide tetrachlorvinphos, which had been approved for use in
household pet products. The court ruled that the agency’s denial was not supported by
substantial evidence, and it instructed the agency to provide a revised response within
120 days (Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA).
Health: Affirming a district court’s judgment in favor of a defendant health insurance
company against breach of contract claims, the Second Circuit considered the application
of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its implementing rules. The panel concluded that
ACA was ambiguous as to whether the statute’s individual or family out-of-pocket annual
expense limits applied to an individual covered by a family health insurance plan. While
a 2015 Department of Health and Human Services rule provided that individuals covered
by family plans were subject to the individual out-of-pocket expense limits, the court held
this rule did not apply retroactively to earlier health insurance plans. In this case, the
plain terms of the plan provided that the plaintiff was obligated to meet the family out-of-
pocket limit (Fisher v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.).
Labor & Employment: The Fifth Circuit upheld President Biden’s removal of the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. The court held that the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not provide the same tenure protections to persons
occupying the General Counsel position as granted to Board members, and the General
Counsel may therefore be removed without cause by the President. Because the General
Counsel’s removal was lawful, the court held that a subsequent unfair practices
prosecution heard by the Board, and brought by the acting General Counsel who
succeeded the removed officer, was not rendered invalid (Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc.
v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd.).
Congressional Research Service
4
Speech: The Ninth Circuit allowed an Oregon minority-party state senator to proceed
with a First Amendment retaliation claim against majority party members. After members
of the minority party had staged a walkout to prevent a legislative quorum, members of
the majority had threatened to send the state police to arrest the minority members and
return them to the capitol. The plaintiff made statements on the state senate floor and to
reporters that the defendants perceived to be threatening, and they ordered the plaintiff
not to enter the state capitol without giving 12 hours’ notice. As an initial matter, the
Ninth Circuit held that the framework used to review speech restrictions on government
employees should not be employed to review speech restrictions on elected officials. The
panel also concluded that the plaintiff raised a plausible inference that he was engaged in
protected speech, and that even a statement that threatens violence may not be a true
threat if the context shows it to be emotionally charged rhetoric or political opposition.
The court concluded that, at the pleading stage of the case, the lower court did not have
grounds for dismissal (Boquist v. Courtney).
Speech: The Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of an organization with student members that
challenged a university’s policies on discriminatory harassment and bias-related incidents
policies. Reviewing a lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, the Eleventh
Circuit held that (1) the plaintiff organization had standing to bring a First Amendment
challenge and (2) the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction against the discriminatory-
harassment policy because it likely violated the First Amendment and other factors
supported the issuance of an injunction. The court remanded the challenge to the bias-
related incident policy to the district court for further consideration, as the lower court
had not reached the merits of the challenge because it erroneously concluded that the
plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit (Speech First, Inc. v. Cartwright).
Tax: The Sixth Circuit ruled in the government’s favor in a tax dispute over the proper
calculation of gross income. A fuel producer had earned a fuel excise tax credit by mixing
renewables into its products, but it claimed that it was entitled to calculate its gross
income based on the full, unreduced amount of excise tax. The court concluded that by
the plain terms of the relevant provision of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.
§ 6426(a)(1), the receipt of the tax credit reduced the recipient’s excise tax burden for
purposes of that calculation (Delek US Holdings, Inc. v. United States).
Terrorism: In affirming a district court’s ruling that the government properly distributed
compensation funds to the family of a victim of state-sponsored terrorism, the D.C.
Circuit concluded that amendments made in 2019 to the United States Victims of State
Sponsored Terrorism Act—which increased the percentage of sanctions penalties that
would go into the compensation fund established by the earlier act—did not have
retroactive effect entitling the family to additional compensation (Braun v. United States).
Author Information
Michael John Garcia
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
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.
LSB10732 · VERSION 1 · NEW