Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (May 22–May 28, 2023)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (May 22–May 28, 2023)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(May 22–May 28, 2023)
May 30, 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 opinions in three cases where it had heard arguments:
• Civil Forfeiture: A unanimous Court held that when a local government foreclosed and
sold a home to satisfy the owner’s tax debt, the taxpayer was entitled to the proceeds
from the sale in excess of the debt owed, and the government’s retention of the surplus
violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause (Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty).
• Federal Courts: In a 9-0 ruling, the Court resolved a circuit split and held that purely
legal claims denied at summary judgment are reviewable on appeal after a jury trial, even
where those claims had not been reasserted in a post-trial motion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 50 (Dupree v. Younger).
• Environmental Law: The Court considered the appropriate standard for identifying
“waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and specifically when
CWA jurisdiction extends to certain wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional waters.
While the Court unanimously agreed that the lower court applied the wrong standard, it
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10970
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
split 5-4 on the appropriate test. The majority formally adopted the approach taken by a
four-Justice plurality in the 2006 case of Rapanos v. United States, which generally
construes the reach of the CWA more narrowly than the approach used by the courts of
appeals since Rapanos. Under this test, “waters” are limited to (1) relatively permanent
bodies of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters and (2) to wetlands
that are a part of the waters of the United States under the CWA when they have a
continuous surface connection to bodies that are “waters of the United States” in their
own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between the bodies (Sackett v. EPA).
The Court also granted certiorari and issued a summary reversal of a Sixth Circuit ruling upholding
sanctions imposed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) against the petitioner. Although
a divided circuit panel found that the FDIC committed legal error when deciding to impose sanctions, the
panel still upheld the agency action after concluding that substantial evidence supported the FDIC’s
decision. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the circuit court should have remanded the case to
the agency so that it could determine liability using the correct legal standard. The Court declined to
consider the petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the FDIC’s structure (Calcutt v. FDIC).
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.
• Civil Rights: The Fourth Circuit held in a divided decision that a high school’s
admissions policy did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The court reviewed claims that the highly selective magnet school changed its admissions
criteria to reduce Asian American enrollment. Finding no intentional discrimination and
concluding that the facially neutral admissions criteria did not disadvantage Asian
Americans, the majority assessed the changes under rational basis review. As a result, the
majority reversed the district court judgment for the plaintiffs and remanded for summary
judgment in favor of the school board (Coal. for TJ v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd.)
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Fourth Circuit joined several other circuits in holding
that a district court may enforce in a later trial a stipulation entered into in an earlier trial.
A criminal defendant objected to the government’s motion to enforce a prior stipulation
that the defendant’s alleged robberies affected interstate commerce. Reasoning that the
most important factor to consider is the parties’ intention at the time to limit or not limit a
stipulation to only one proceeding, the court held that nothing in the relevant stipulation’s
language limited its applicability to the first trial (United States v. Robertson).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Ninth Circuit held that a state post-conviction relief
(PCR) application is “pending” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) for purposes of tolling the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) as long as a state
avenue for relief remains open, whether or not a petitioner takes advantage of it. An
Arizona prisoner appealed a district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition as untimely
since AEDPA’s one-year limitations period had elapsed. The prisoner and the state
disagreed as to when a state PCR is no longer “pending” under § 2244(d)(2), ending the
statutory tolling period and starting the AEDPA one-year limitations period for bringing a
habeas petition. The court held that the clock did not start on the AEDPA one-year
limitations until the expiration of an extension of time the prisoner had obtained but never
used to receive reconsideration from the state court (Melville v. Shinn).

Congressional Research Service
3
• Environmental Law: The D.C. Circuit denied most claims brought by environmental
groups to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) approval of the
construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, an interstate natural gas pipeline, in
Virginia and West Virginia. The court agreed with the groups that FERC had not
adequately explained why it did not prepare a supplemental environmental impact
statement on severe erosion and sedimentation along the pipeline’s right-of-way. The
court did not vacate FERC’s orders relating to the authorization and continuation of the
project, but remanded the orders so FERC could either prepare a supplementary
environmental impact statement or better explain why a statement was unnecessary. The
D.C. Circuit’s decision does not disrupt rulings made by the Fourth Circuit vacating
federal permits for the project issued by other agencies and discussed in prior editions of
the Congressional Court Watcher (Sierra Club v. FERC).
• Immigration: The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s order dismissing an
indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which criminalizes unlawful alien reentry following
removal from the United States, after deciding that the lower court wrongly concluded
the statute violated equal protection principles. The circuit court found that the legislative
history behind § 1326’s enactment did not support the lower court’s conclusion that the
law, while facially neutral as to race, was motivated by discriminatory animus toward
Mexicans and Central and South Americans. Because the circuit court held that the equal
protection challenge to § 1326 failed under the usual test for assessing discriminatory
animus claims, it declined to decide whether immigration laws should be reviewed under
a more deferential standard (United States v. Carrillo-Lopez).
• Labor & Employment: The Sixth Circuit held that a right to recover punitive damages
under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) does not survive a claimant’s
death. An employee who brought an administrative action against a former employer for
unlawful retaliation died before an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a final decision
awarding damages. The court, recognizing that Congress and no other court had
addressed the survivability issue as to the STAA, relied on federal common-law
principles in reasoning that punitive claims to punish the defendant, rather than remedial
claims, do not survive a party’s death. As a result, the court affirmed the Administrative
Review Board’s decision reversing the ALJ’s punitive damage award but upholding an
award of backpay, compensatory damages, and attorney fees to the employee’s estate
(Weatherford U.S., L.P. v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab.).
• *Tax: The Fourth Circuit added to a circuit split over the relationship between the
common-law mailbox rule, which involves presumptions related to the timeliness and
delivery of documents sent by U.S. mail, and the statutory mailbox rule specific to tax
filings in 26 U.S.C. § 7502. While deciding that a taxpayer could proceed in a suit
seeking a federal tax refund, the court joined the Second and Sixth Circuits in deciding
that § 7502 supplanted the common-law rule for tax filings. This position contrasts from
that of the Eighth and Tenth Circuit, which held that § 7502 supplements the common-
law rule (Pond v. United States).

Congressional Research Service
4

Author Information

Michael John Garcia
Jimmy Balser
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
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.

LSB10970 · VERSION 1 · NEW