Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Oct. 10–Oct. 16, 2022)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Oct. 10–Oct. 16, 2022)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(Oct. 10–Oct. 16, 2022)
October 17, 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
Last week, the Supreme Court did not issue any opinions or agree to hear any new cases, but summarily
disposed of hundreds of cases. Among them, the Court declined former President Donald Trump’s request
to stay an Eleventh Circuit ruling that enabled the Department of Justice to begin reviewing documents
marked as classified that were seized from his Mar-a-Lago property. These proceedings are discussed in a
prior Congressional Court Watcher edition (Trump v. United States).
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.
 Bankruptcy: Affirming the judgment of the bankruptcy court, a divided Fifth Circuit
held that a formerly insolvent petroleum company that declared bankruptcy, but became
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10843
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
solvent during the bankruptcy due to a spike in natural gas prices, was compelled to pay
its creditors the present value of the interest payments they would have received but for
the bankruptcy. The majority held that the Bankruptcy Code did not displace the
centuries-old, common law “solvent-debtor exception,” which requires a solvent debtor
to repay contractual debts. While recognizing that the Bankruptcy Code’s plain text,
which generally disallows claims of unmatured interest by a creditor, appeared to bar the
creditors from receiving restitution here, the majority held that the “solvent-debtor
exception” entitled the creditors to payment (In re Ultra Petroleum Corp.).
 Communications: A divided Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs satisfied constitutional and
statutory standing requirements to bring suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act against the defendants, who were alleged to have called cell phone numbers placed
on the national do-not-call registry. The majority rejected arguments that certain plaintiffs
could not bring suit alleging the phone calls violated the Act’s do-not-call provisions,
which apply to “residential” phone numbers. Noting that Federal Communications
Commission orders and regulations treat cell phone numbers on the do-not-call list as
presumptively residential, the majority concluded that plaintiffs’ dual use of their cell
phones for personal and business use did not prevent their cell phone numbers from being
treated as “residential.” The majority held that defendants could overcome that
presumption by showing that plaintiffs used their cell phones for business purposes to
such an extent as to be considered nonresidential (Chennette v. Porch.com).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The Fifth Circuit largely upheld a criminal defendant’s
convictions for multiple child pornography convictions, including for pornographic
drawings of minors who did not exist. The court held that the plain text of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1466A(a)(1), criminalizing the obscene visual depiction of a minor, does not require
that the image depict a real minor, concluding the statute’s lack of this requirement did
not pose a constitutional infirmity. The panel distinguished § 1466A(a)(1) from a similar
statute struck down by the Supreme Court that criminalized depictions of actual or virtual
children engaged in sexual conduct because § 1466A(a)(1) also required the depiction to
be obscene, meaning that it would not be protected under the First Amendment (United
States v. Arthur).
 Immigration: The First Circuit affirmed a lower court’s preliminary injunction of a
Maine statute that sought to prevent Canadian truck drivers from hauling logs within the
state under the auspices of the federal H-2A visa program for temporary agricultural
workers. The panel agreed with the lower court that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in
their argument that federal immigration law preempted the state statute (Maine Forest
Prod. Counsel v. Cormier).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia

Deputy Assistant Director/ALD

Congressional Research Service
3
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.

LSB10843 · VERSION 1 · NEW