Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (May 9–May 15, 2022)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (May 9–May 15, 2022)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(May 9–May 15, 2022)
May 16, 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 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
No Supreme Court opinions were issued this past week, and no new cases were added to the Court’s
docket.
Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Topic headings marked with an asterisk (*) indicate cases in which 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.
 *Civil Liability: Adding to a circuit split, the Ninth Circuit held that the statute of
limitations for bringing a civil action under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act is
not jurisdictional, meaning an argument that a claim is time-barred cannot be raised at
any time in litigation (or determined sua sponte by the court). Instead, untimeliness issues
are merits-based arguments appropriately raised in motions for summary judgment. The
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10744
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
panel also held that a notice of a claim triggering the statute of limitations must (1) be in
writing; (2) clearly state that the victim of a maritime incident intends to bring a claim
against the vessel owner; and (3) include at least one claim likely to be covered by the
Act (Martz v. Horazdovsky).
 Civil Rights: Sitting en banc, a divided Seventh Circuit clarified its approach to
determining whether a school district had actual notice of, and was deliberately
indifferent to, a teacher’s sexual misconduct violating Title IX’s prohibition against
discrimination on the basis of sex in educational settings. The court held that an official
acquires actual notice upon learning that misconduct constituting sex harassment has
occurred, at which point a duty to act is imposed. The majority held that Title IX does not
provide for institutional liability based solely on awareness of a risk of future misconduct
(C.S. v. Madison Metro. School Dist.).
 *Criminal Law & Procedure: Adding to a circuit split, a divided Ninth Circuit held that
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), which requires a federal court to dismiss a second or successive
application for habeas relief brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, does not
bar consideration of a second or successive application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 brought by a person in federal custody (Jones v. United States).
 Environmental Law: A divided Ninth Circuit upheld a district court decision that the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving a mining
plan of operations for an open-pit copper mine in Arizona. The case largely turned on
whether 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,
allowed a mining company to dispose of waste rock in areas of a National Forest in
which it lacked mining rights. Like the lower court, the circuit court found the Service
erred in concluding that the Surface Resources and Multiple Use Act of 1955 gave the
company the ability to discard waste rock on open National Forest land, or otherwise
granted rights beyond those provided by the 1872 law. It also held that while the
company held mineral rights in the National Forest, it lacked mining rights over the areas
the waste rock would occupy. The court remanded the case to the Service for further
proceedings, where it could decide how regulations governing surface use of forest land
related to mining may apply (Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service).
 Firearms: The Ninth Circuit reviewed a district court decision not to enjoin two
California restrictions on the sale or transfer of certain firearms to adults under the age of
21 while a Second Amendment challenge to those restrictions continued. The panel
agreed with the district court that a provision restricting federally licensed firearms
dealers (FFLs) from selling or transferring long guns to young adults, except when the
recipient has a hunting license or falls under other limited exceptions, was likely to
survive legal challenge under an intermediate scrutiny standard of review. The panel
majority held, however, that the district court erred in deciding that California’s bar on
FFLs selling or transferring semiautomatic centerfire rifles to adults under 21 in most
cases was likely to withstand legal challenge, either under the intermediate scrutiny
standard used by the district court or under the more exacting strict scrutiny standard that
the panel majority believed appropriate. The majority also held that the lower court
abused its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs would not be irreparably harmed in
the absence of a preliminary injunction. The circuit court remanded the case for further
proceedings consistent with the opinion (Jones v. Bonta).

Congressional Research Service
3
 Immigration: A divided Fourth Circuit panel vacated a district court’s preliminary
injunction order which required new bond hearings for a class of aliens within the district
who were held in immigration custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). That provision permits
detention of persons during the pendency of removal proceedings, but allows their release
on bond or their own recognizance unless otherwise subject to mandatory detention. The
majority held that a jurisdiction-limiting statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), barred the district
court from issuing class-wide injunctive relief regarding the bond hearing process. The
majority also held that the individual plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their due
process challenges to the detention procedures adopted for the § 1226(a) bond hearings
(Miranda v. Garland).
 Labor & Employment: The Sixth Circuit upheld a penalty imposed on a mine operator
for warning employees about an impending safety inspection by the Department of
Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration. The panel held that a provision of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act prohibiting advance notice of a mine inspection
applied to the mine operator and its employees, and that the restriction the provision
placed on the mine workers’ speech withstood a First Amendment challenge because it
was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest (KenAmerican
Resources, Inc. v. U.S. Secretary of Labor).
 Speech: The Sixth Circuit held that legislative immunity shielded members of a state
legislative caucus from liability in a civil suit brought by a former state legislator, who
alleged that her removal from the caucus was in retaliation for engaging in speech
protected by the First Amendment (Kent v. Ohio House of Representatives Democratic
Caucus).
 Tax: A divided Ninth Circuit held that under a Tax Code provision in effect until the end
of 2017, a delinquent partnership return need not be mailed to an Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) service center, as would normally be required for the return to be deemed
“filed” with the IRS, if the return is delivered to a requesting IRS official authorized to
receive and process the return (Seaview Trading, LLC 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,

Congressional Research Service
4
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.

LSB10744 · VERSION 1 · NEW