Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Feb. 6–Feb. 12, 2023)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Feb. 6–Feb. 12, 2023)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(Feb. 6–Feb. 12, 2023)
February 14, 2023
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.
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 Rights: A divided Third Circuit reversed in part a district court’s order dismissing
claims brought by plaintiffs incarcerated for failing to pay child support who alleged that
authorities had coerced them into providing dangerous labor during their detention. The
plaintiffs alleged that county authorities conditioned their access to paid work release
programs necessary to satisfy their civil contempt orders on first working at a privately
owned recycling center for minimal pay. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiffs
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10918
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
adequately pled claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Fair Labor
Standards Act, and Pennsylvania law against the county, local waste authority, and
recycling center for abusing the work release program and violating the state and federal
minimum wage, as well as a claim against the recycling center under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Burrell v. Staff).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s order
dismissing criminal charges against defendants accused of facilitating a bribery scheme
between U.S.-based businesses and Venezuelan officials. The Fifth Circuit held that the
indictments sufficiently alleged that the defendants were “agents” of a domestic concern
within the meaning of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and that the term “agent” is not
unconstitutionally vague. The Fifth Circuit also held that money laundering charges may
be brought under the extraterritoriality provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(f) based on conduct
that “occurs in part in the United States,” even when the defendant is not physically
present in the United States. The Fifth Circuit further concluded that the district court
erred by refusing to toll a statute of limitations to account for obtaining foreign evidence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3292 and by granting one defendant’s motion to suppress certain
evidence (United States v. Rafoi).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: The Eleventh Circuit held that Florida’s registration and
reporting requirements for sex offenders do not render those offenders “in custody” under
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), a prerequisite for seeking post-conviction relief under that federal
habeas corpus statute. The court reasoned that Florida’s requirements, while demanding,
did not substantially limit the petitioner’s actions or movements. For procedural reasons,
the court did not consider separate state and local residency restrictions on sex offenders
(Clements v. Florida).
 Election Law: A divided Eighth Circuit held that the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA) did not preempt a civil investigative demand from the Minnesota Attorney
General to political action committee WinRed Inc. regarding allegations that WinRed
made misleading solicitations for donations to federal candidates during the 2020 election
cycle. The Minnesota Attorney General alleged that WinRed violated Minnesota’s
consumer protection law, but WinRed argued that 52 U.S.C. § 30143 of FECA, which
supersedes state law “with respect to election to Federal office,” preempted Minnesota’s
investigation. The Eighth Circuit held that FECA did not expressly preempt the
underlying state law and explained that, under a Federal Election Commission regulation,
Minnesota’s law fit into a category of statutes not superseded by FECA for “false
registration, voting fraud, theft of ballots, and similar offenses.” The court also held that
implied preemption did not apply, concluding that FECA’s silence did not mean that
Congress intended to preempt all federal-election-related consumer protections (WinRed,
Inc. v. Ellison).
 Energy: The Tenth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over New Mexico’s challenge
to an agency decision regarding spent nuclear fuel because the state was not a party to the
relevant administrative proceedings. New Mexico sought to challenge the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission’s grant of a temporary license to a private company to store
spent nuclear fuel near the state’s border. The state argued that the court had jurisdiction
under the combination of the Hobbs Act and Atomic Energy Act and, separately, under
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The court held that New Mexico merely submitted a
comment to the Commission regarding the license and so was not an “aggrieved party”
sufficient to trigger jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act and Atomic Energy Act. The court
further held that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act did not trigger jurisdiction because the Act
did not cover the temporary license at issue and, alternatively, because New Mexico

Congressional Research Service
3
failed to utilize other available remedies (New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. U.S. Nuclear
Regul. Comm’n).
 Environmental Law: The Sixth Circuit granted a petition challenging the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2020 removal of an air nuisance rule (ANR) from Ohio’s
State Implementation Plan for national ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air
Act. The court rejected the EPA’s argument that the petitioners lacked standing to
challenge the removal. On the merits, the EPA requested remand to the agency without
vacatur. Intervenor Ohio opposed remand, and the petitioners sought remand with vacatur
and additional conditions. The court granted the EPA’s request and remanded without
vacating EPA’s removal of the ANR (Sierra Club v. EPA).
 Environmental Law: The Federal Circuit held that 2007 amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not create compensable property
rights in fishing permits or licenses that could support a Fifth Amendment takings claim.
The plaintiffs sought compensation for limits placed on their harvesting and processing of
fish by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 and argued that the 2007 amendments
overrode earlier court decisions holding that the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not create
compensable property interests. The Federal Circuit disagreed and held that the Act
neither explicitly nor implicitly created such rights in permits or licenses. The court also
held that the plaintiffs lacked any other compensable property interest in using their
fishing vessels to harvest and process fish in the areas restricted by the 2018 Act
(Fisherman’s Finest, Inc. v. United States).
 Federal Courts: The Eleventh Circuit joined a consensus among other circuits and held
that 28 U.S.C. § 1961 provides a default rule for post-judgment interest in federal cases
but does not prevent parties from contracting around that rule via clear, unambiguous,
and unequivocal language. The Eleventh Circuit determined that the parties had not
entered such an agreement and affirmed the district court’s judgment concerning that and
all other issues in the case (Walker v. Life Ins. Co. of N.Am.).
 Immigration: The Sixth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review an appeal denying
a cancellation of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), because the appeal
fell under the safe harbor provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Appellate courts have
limited jurisdiction over immigration courts’ decisions regarding alien eligibility for relief
from removal, and the appellate courts are typically barred from reviewing factual
findings underlying BIA decisions. The Sixth Circuit nevertheless determined that it had
jurisdiction over the appeal and could review the underlying facts related to whether the
petitioner, who was unlawfully present in the United States, satisfied the “good moral
character” eligibility requirement for cancellation of removal. Adopting reasoning
previously employed by the Eighth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit held that the statute’s safe
harbor provision allows a federal appeals court to review questions of law, including
mixed questions of law and fact, and that appeals requesting review of cancellations of
removal fall into this category (Jorge Hernandez v. Merrick Garland).
 Immigration: The Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear en banc a challenge to the Department
of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) attempt to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
designations for Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador. Certain aliens within the
United States who might otherwise be subject to removal may remain in the country if
DHS has designated those countries for TPS because of unstable or dangerous conditions
within those countries. DHS announced it would end TPS designations for Sudan,
Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador in 2017 and 2018, but plaintiffs challenged the orders
on constitutional equal protection grounds and under the Administrative Procedure Act,

Congressional Research Service
4
and a district court issued a preliminary injunction barring implementation of the TPS
termination orders while litigation continued. In 2020, a divided three-judge Ninth
Circuit panel reversed and vacated the preliminary injunction, and remanded the case to
the lower court for further proceedings. However, the panel did not issue a directive to
the district court to make the ruling effective, and the injunction has remained in place.
Without addressing the underlying merits of the earlier panel decision, the en banc Ninth
Circuit vacated the panel’s ruling and agreed to rehear the case (Ramos v. Wolf).
 Intellectual Property: The Federal Circuit affirmed the Director of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office’s (Director’s) denial of rehearing in two proceedings before the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In 2021, the Supreme Court held in United States v.
Arthrex, Inc. that the Constitution’s Appointments Clause requires the Director to review
the PTAB’s final patentability decisions. The Federal Circuit rejected the appellant’s
argument that the Director’s review must occur within the statutory deadlines applicable
to PTAB decisions. The Federal Circuit also held that the Director’s delegation to the
PTAB of statutory authority to extend a deadline when cases are joined did not violate the
Appointments Clause (CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC).
 International Trade: The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of
International Trade and upheld Presidential Proclamation 9980, which raised tariffs on
imports of steel derivative products (e.g., steel nails, tacks, and stranded wire) from
certain countries. Then-President Trump proclaimed the tariff increases after the
Secretary of Commerce reported a threat to national security under Section 232 of the
Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 empowers and directs the President to act to
alleviate threats to national security from products imported into the United States. The
Secretary found that steel imports were a threat to national security based on their
contribution to unsustainably low levels of domestic steel production. The Federal Circuit
concluded that steel derivatives were within Section 232’s authorization of presidential
action based on the Secretary’s finding about steel imports (PrimeSource Building
Products, Inc. v. United States).
 Labor & Employment: The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court order granting
summary to judgment to Amtrak against a former employee’s racial discrimination claim,
but rejected Amtrak’s argument that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) precluded the claim.
Amtrak contended that the plaintiff’s suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 depended on the
interpretation and application of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and so was
subject to mandatory arbitration under the RLA. The Fourth Circuit held that the
plaintiff’s claim did not depend on a right arising from the CBA or require interpretation
of the CBA, but affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling in Amtrak’s favor
on the substance of the claim (Giles v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.).

Author Information

Hannah-Alise Rogers
Alexander H. Pepper
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney

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.

LSB10918 · VERSION 1 · NEW