Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Mar. 20, 2023–Mar. 26, 2023)
Legal Sidebari
Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(Mar. 20, 2023–Mar. 26, 2023)
March 27, 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 issued a decision on the merits in one case for which it heard oral
argument:
Education: A unanimous Supreme Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) does not require a plaintiff to exhaust IDEA’s administrative
procedures before filing a lawsuit seeking a remedy that is unavailable under IDEA. To
guarantee children with disabilities a free, appropriate public education, IDEA gives
children and their parents the right to an administrative hearing before a local or state
official followed by an appeal to the state education agency. IDEA also preserves
students’ rights to file civil actions under other laws, including the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), provided they first exhaust IDEA’s administrative procedures if
they are “seeking relief” that is also available under IDEA. In a case where the plaintiff-
appellant settled his IDEA complaint with the defendant school district prior to an
administrative hearing, then filed a federal ADA lawsuit seeking compensatory damages
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10941
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
(a remedy unavailable under IDEA), the Court held that, based on IDEA’s text, the
exhaustion requirement applies only when plaintiffs seek remedies that IDEA can
provide. Thus, the mere fact that IDEA could provide some remedy did not require
plaintiff to exhaust administrative procedures before filing a lawsuit for damages (Perez
v. Sturgis Pub. Sch.).
On March 20, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded a case to the Eighth Circuit
involving a Missouri law requiring minors seeking an abortion to obtain either parental notification or
permission from a court. The Court remanded proceedings with instructions to dismiss the case as moot
(Chapman v. Doe).
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 nonuniform application of the law among the circuits.
*Administrative Law: The D.C. Circuit and the Fifth Circuit issued conflicting
decisions on whether district courts have jurisdiction over federal employees’ challenges
to COVID-19 vaccination mandates. The D.C. Circuit held that the district court correctly
dismissed a federal employee’s challenge to the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for
executive branch employees in Executive Order 14,043, which the plaintiff alleged was
unconstitutional. The court determined that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA)
foreclosed plaintiff’s lawsuit because Congress intended the CSRA to provide the
exclusive means to redress such claims (Payne v. Biden).
On the same day, a divided Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed a district court’s
exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction over pre-enforcement challenges to the same
COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The plaintiffs raised several constitutional and statutory
claims, and the district court enjoined the federal employee vaccine mandate. The en banc
majority determined that the CSRA did not eliminate district court jurisdiction because
the plaintiffs were not challenging the type of personnel actions covered by the statute.
The court also determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a
nationwide preliminary injunction against the federal employee vaccination mandate
(Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden).
Communications: The Fifth Circuit rejected petitioners’ challenges to the
constitutionality of Congress’s delegation of the Universal Service Fund’s (USF’s)
administration to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The court concluded that the Act provided the FCC
with numerous intelligible principles to guide the agency’s administration of the USF.
The court further held that the FCC did not violate the private nondelegation doctrine by
allowing a nonprofit to administer the USF (Consumers’ Research v. FCC).
*Consumer Protection: The Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to grant a
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) petition to enforce a civil investigative
demand (CID). The CFPB served plaintiff a CID for documents related to an
investigation. Plaintiff argued, among other things, that the CID could not be enforced
because the CFPB’s funding structure violates the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause,
and Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine when it created the CFPB’s funding
structure in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) because it did not articulate
an intelligible principle to guide the President. Declining to follow a 2022 Fifth Circuit
decision on the same issue, the Second Circuit rejected plaintiff’s arguments and affirmed
Congressional Research Service
3
the district court’s decision to enforce the CID. The court explained that, contrary to the
Fifth Circuit, it could not find any support in the text or history of the Appropriations
Clause (or Supreme Court precedent) to support the conclusion that the CFPB’s funding
structure was impermissible (CFPB v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C.).
Criminal Law: The Sixth Circuit held that the right to a jury trial does not extend to
supervised-release revocation proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) and that evidence
collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be excluded from such
proceedings. In United States v. Haymond, the Supreme Court held that the jury-trial
guarantee applies to § 3583(k)—which imposes a minimum 5-year prison term on a
defendant who commits certain sex-related crimes while on supervised release—because
the imposition of a new mandatory minimum sentence requires a jury finding. The circuit
court declined to extend Haymond to § 3583(g)—which requires a defendant to serve
unspecified additional time for certain drug and firearm offenses committed while on
supervised release. The court reasoned § 3583(g) is closer to a traditional supervised-
release sanction, which requires only a judge-made finding, than a penalty for a new
offense requiring a jury finding. Joining other circuits, the court also held that the
exclusionary rule, which generally prohibits prosecutors from introducing incriminating
evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, does not extend to supervised-
release hearings (United States v. Robinson).
Environmental: The Tenth Circuit held that an environmental organization did not have
standing to challenge certain grazing permits issued by the Bureau of Land Management.
Because the permits expired before the organization filed its lawsuit, the court found
there was no injury to remedy. Although the expired permits renewed automatically under
43 U.S.C. § 1752(c)(2), the court held that the new permits did not create standing, both
because the complaint challenged only the original permits and because the statute
itself—rather than an agency decision—required their renewal. Although the Ninth
Circuit and D.C. Circuit had allowed that expired permits could give rise to a justiciable
case, the court distinguished those cases based on certain statutory amendments and the
fact that those cases did not address standing but the related doctrine of mootness (W.
Watersheds Project v. Interior Bd. of Land Appeals).
Immigration: The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of defendant’s
challenge to his criminal conviction for illegally reentering the country after having been
ordered removed for committing an aggravated felony. In challenging his 2021
indictment for illegal reentry, the defendant claimed that the five-year statute of
limitations barred his 2021 prosecution for illegal reentry because he had been “found in”
the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) when he spoke with local police in 2016.
The court held that, although the local sheriff’s office had been operating under a
memorandum of agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the deputy had
not been designated under the agreement to enforce federal immigration laws. The court
therefore determined that, under § 1326(a)(2), federal officials did not have knowledge of
his presence in the United States, and therefore the statute of limitations had not run
(United States v. Alas).
Religion: A split Third Circuit held that a prisoner had a triable lawsuit against
correctional officers whom he sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
(RFRA). The plaintiff, a Muslim, claims that defendants substantially burdened his
sincere religious exercise by deliberately and repeatedly interfering with his regular
prayers. Joining several other circuits, the court held that qualified immunity—which
shields government officials from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly
established law—is available under RFRA although the statute does not expressly permit
Congressional Research Service
4
it. Nonetheless, the majority of the panel held that the district court erred by granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Applying the two-prong qualified
immunity test, the court held that the plaintiff made a prima facie case that defendants
violated RFRA by substantially burdening his sincere religious exercise, and that record
evidence showed the violation of what the majority characterized as the well-established
“right to engage in prayer free of substantial, deliberate, repeated, and unjustified
disruption by prison officials” (Mack v. Yost).
Author Information
Juria L. Jones
Christopher T. Zirpoli
Section Research Manager
Legislative Attorney
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.
LSB10941 · VERSION 1 · NEW