Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (October 10, 2023–October 15, 2023)
Legal Sidebari
Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(October 10, 2023–October 15, 2023)
October 16, 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 granted certiorari in four cases:
• Administrative Law: In a case from the First Circuit, the Court agreed to consider
whether it should overrule the administrative law doctrine known as Chevron deference,
established by the Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. The Court had granted certiorari on the same question in another case, Loper Bright
Enterprises v. Raimondo, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is recused from that case.
The Court indicated the two cases will be argued in tandem this term (Relentless, Inc. v.
Dep’t of Commerce).
• Banking: The Court agreed to review a case from the Second Circuit that raises the
question whether the National Bank Act of 1864 (NBA) preempts state escrow interest
laws as they apply to federally chartered banks (Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.).
• Bankruptcy: The Court agreed to hear a case from the Fourth Circuit concerning the
circumstances under which a debtor’s insurer is considered a “party in interest” with
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11058
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
statutory standing under 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b) to object to a Chapter 11 reorganization
plan (Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Gypsum Co.).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Court agreed to hear a case from the Fifth Circuit on
the scope of the Court’s 2019 ruling in Nieves v. Bartlett. In Nieves, the Court held that a
First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim will not succeed if there was probable cause to
make the arrest, unless the claim is supported by objective evidence that police did not
arrest similarly situated persons who were not engaged in protected speech. The Court is
asked whether this exception can be satisfied only through specific evidence of non-
arrests. The Court is also asked whether the Nieves probable cause rule applies only when
arresting officers make split-second arrest decisions (Gonzalez v. Trevino).
The Court also took action on two emergency applications last week:
• Indian Law: Chief Justice John Roberts, acting in his Circuit Justice capacity, issued an
administrative stay in a case from the D.C. Circuit, stopping a compact between the
Seminole Tribe of Florida and the State of Florida from taking effect while the Supreme
Court considers whether to grant plaintiff’s emergency application for relief. As
discussed in an earlier Congressional Court Watcher, the D.C. Circuit held that the
Secretary of the Interior did not violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a law that
regulates gaming on Indian lands, or other federal laws in allowing the compact to
become effective. At issue was the compact’s provision for online sports betting, enabling
people to gamble outside Indian lands (W. Flagler Assocs., Ltd. v. Haaland).
• Speech: Justice Samuel Alito also extended an administrative stay, discussed in an earlier
Congressional Court Watcher, that gives the Court more time to consider an emergency
application in a closely watched case about social media platforms (Murthy v. Missouri).
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 Procedure: The Ninth Circuit held that a federal statute governing court filing fees
for indigent prisoners, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize courts to collect filing fees
from a prisoner who is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis (i.e., without the
prepayment of court filing fees), even if the prisoner is initially permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis before the ineligibility determination. Section 1915(b) establishes an
automatic payment plan for filing fees accrued by prisoners bringing a civil action or
appeal in forma pauperis. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the court may not collect fees
and must refund any fees collected under that plan if an individual is barred from
proceeding in forma pauperis under Section 1915(g) (Meyers v. Birdsong).
• *Civil Rights: The Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed an earlier decision holding that Title I of
the Americans with Disabilities Act does not permit a former employee to sue for
discrimination based on post-employment distribution of fringe benefits. The plaintiff
sued her former employer under Title I for terminating the health insurance subsidy she
had received when she retired for qualifying disability reasons, but the court concluded
that a Title I plaintiff must hold or seek a position with the defendant at the time of the
allegedly discriminatory act. This decision reaffirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s alignment
with the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in a circuit split on the issue with the Second
and Third Circuits (Stanley v. City of Sanford).
Congressional Research Service
3
• Consumer Protection: A divided Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination
that a collection agency violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending
misleading and deceptive collection notices to a class of consumers, but the majority
disagreed with the lower court’s standing analysis and class certification decision. The
majority concluded that the lower court erred in finding that the named plaintiff had
suffered a cognizable harm under the “informational injury” doctrine, because circuit
precedent made the doctrine applicable only when a plaintiff is denied information to
which she is legally entitled, which had not happened here. The majority nonetheless held
that the named plaintiff had standing because she claimed to have suffered financial harm
as a result of reliance on the collection letters. The court of appeals vacated the lower
court’s order certifying the proposed class and awarding damages, and remanded so the
district court could consider the extent to which unnamed class members had also
suffered a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for standing (Huber v.
Simon’s Agency, Inc.).
• *Criminal Law & Procedure: A divided, en banc Eleventh Circuit held that a former
civil servant is not an “officer or employee of the United States” under 18 U.S.C. § 1114
and § 1521, splitting with the Fifth Circuit. Section 1521 makes it a crime to file a
retaliatory false lien against the property of an “individual described in” Section 1114,
which criminalizes the killing of “any officer or employee of the United States” “engaged
in” or “on account of” their performance of official duties. The defendant in the case had
been convicted of filing false liens against the property of former civil servants in
retaliation for a tax dispute. Focusing on the statutory text, context, and structure, the
court rejected the government’s argument that Sections 1114 and 1521 cover former
federal officers and employees so long as the defendant retaliated against the victims “on
account of” their prior performance of official actions (United States v. Pate).
• Election Law: The Tenth Circuit held that provisions of a Wyoming campaign finance
law were unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff advocacy group. The state law
generally requires that organizations spending over $1,000 on an electioneering
communication advocating for a political candidate’s victory or defeat must disclose
contributions and expenditures “related to” the electioneering communication, and must
disclose donors’ names for such contributions over $100. Applying an exacting scrutiny
standard, the court concluded that the disclosure regime violated the plaintiff advocacy
group’s First Amendment rights because the rules were not narrowly tailored to the
government’s interest in requiring the disclosures. The court also concluded that the
disclosure requirement was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the group, because the
group did not have an earmarking or other mechanism permitting donors to set aside
contributions for specific purposes, and it was therefore unclear how to determine
whether a contribution “related to” a particular advertisement (Wyoming Gun Owners v.
Gray).
• Environmental Law: The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of New York’s
challenge to its annual commercial quota allotment under a federal fishery management
plan designed to conserve and manage summer flounder off the eastern seaboard. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) requires fishery management plans to consider 10 national
standards that prioritize different objectives. Since 1992, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) has incorporated annual commercial quotas for 11 states participating in
the fishery management plan for the summer flounder fishery, setting limits on how much
summer flounder a particular state’s fishermen can catch. The court rejected New York’s
challenge to the 2020 adjustment of the annual quota allotment, after deciding that the
Congressional Research Service
4
state had not shown that the NMFS’s balancing of the 10 national standards in setting the
adjustment lacked a rational basis (New York v. Raimondo).
• Firearms: A divided, en banc Ninth Circuit partially stayed, pending appeal, a district
court order that had halted enforcement of California’s criminal prohibition on the
manufacture, sale, or possession of large-capacity magazines, defined as “any
ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.” The
majority’s summary order concluded that the law likely did not violate the Second
Amendment under the framework the Supreme Court established in New York State Rifle
& Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court also separately requested briefing from the
parties on whether the appeal and the motion were properly before the en banc panel in
light of a federal statute governing en banc proceedings (Duncan v. Bonta).
• Health: The Ninth Circuit temporarily halted enforcement of an Idaho abortion law when
it vacated a three-judge circuit panel decision and granted rehearing en banc. Idaho’s
abortion law makes it a crime for a health care provider to perform an abortion except in
a narrow set of circumstances, including to save the life of the mother. The lower court
issued its injunction after deciding the United States was likely to succeed in its claim
that aspects of the law were preempted by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor
Act (EMTALA), which generally requires Medicare-participating hospitals with
emergency departments (1) to provide appropriate medical screening to an individual
requesting examination or treatment to determine whether an emergency medical
condition exists; and (2) if such a condition exists, to provide necessary treatment to
stabilize the individual before any transfer to another medical facility can take place. The
three-judge circuit panel had halted implementation of the district court’s injunction after
concluding that EMTALA does not require abortions and that even if it did, this
requirement would not directly conflict with the state law given its life-of-the-mother
exception (United States v. Idaho).
• Immigration: In an amended decision, the Second Circuit held that the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) must apply certain discretionary factors when an alien seeks
to reopen or remand an immigration judge’s removal decision pending adjudication of his
or her U visa application. The court explained that under BIA precedent, immigration
judges deciding whether to continue a removal proceeding in light of a pending U visa
application must consider certain factors, including whether the underlying visa petition
is prima facie approvable. The court joined other circuits in concluding that those same
factors apply when an alien petitioning for a U visa seeks to reopen or remand a removal
decision on appeal to the BIA, even if the petitioner had not sought a continuance from
the immigration judge to await adjudication of the U visa petition (Paucar v. Garland).
• *Property: In a circuit split, the Fifth Circuit declined to adopt a rule that a state’s
actions are not a taking for purposes of the Takings Clause when the state acts pursuant to
its police power instead of its eminent domain power. The court instead held more
narrowly that the Takings Clause does not require governments to provide compensation
for damaged property when such damage is objectively necessary for law enforcement
officers to prevent imminent harm to people. The plaintiff sued the defendant city for
compensation after law enforcement officers severely damaged her home in responding
to an armed fugitive who was holding a child hostage inside. The court concluded that
history, tradition, and historical precedent established a necessity exception to the Takings
Clause and required dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for compensation (Baker v. City of
McKinney).
Congressional Research Service
5
• Separation of Powers: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims in a
case on remand from the Supreme Court. In Collins v. Yellen, the Supreme Court held that
the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA’s) enabling statute contained an
unconstitutional removal restriction on the FHFA Director. The case was remanded to the
Fifth Circuit, which in turn remanded the case to the district court to determine whether
the unconstitutional removal restriction had in fact harmed the plaintiffs, who are private
shareholders of government-sponsored home mortgage companies under the FHFA’s
conservatorship. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’
claim that the unconstitutional removal restriction caused them harm. It concluded that
the plaintiffs’ claim that the companies would have been returned to private control if not
for the removal restriction was too speculative to survive a motion to dismiss. The
appeals court also agreed with the lower court that the plaintiffs’ newly raised argument
that the FHFA’s funding structure violates the Appropriations Clause was outside the
mandate of the Collins remand order, and the appellate panel ruled that the lower court
properly dismissed this claim as a result (Collins v. Treasury).
• Tax: In a per curiam opinion, the Fifth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part a
district court’s dismissal under the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) of property owners’ federal
and state law challenges to a city ordinance that authorized the collection of taxes on the
owners’ property. The TIA provides that federal district courts “shall not enjoin, suspend
or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain,
speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” Although the city
ordinance authorized the collection of taxes, the court concluded that the ordinance was a
separate legal mandate several steps removed from the actual assessment, levy, and
collection of taxes, and therefore the property owners could challenge the ordinance in
district court, notwithstanding the TIA. The court further held, however, that the property
owners’ requests to restrain certain actions of the local taxing authority went beyond
challenging the ordinance and were barred by the TIA for directly challenging the state’s
taxing power (Harward v. City of Austin).
Author Information
Michael John Garcia
Bryan L. Adkins
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
Legislative Attorney
Congressional Research Service
6
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.
LSB11058 · VERSION 1 · NEW