Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (October 30, 2023–November 5, 2023)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (October 30, 2023–November 5, 2023)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(October 30, 2023–November 5, 2023)
November 6, 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 three cases:
• Arbitration: The Court agreed to hear a case from the Ninth Circuit on whether an
arbitrator or a court decides if an arbitration agreement’s scope had been narrowed by a
later contract, when the earlier agreement had delegated to the arbitrator authority to
decide threshold questions of arbitrability (Coinbase v. Suski).
• Firearms: The Court decided to review a case from the Fifth Circuit that held that a
nonmechanical bump stock is not a machine gun under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24). In a
2018 final rule, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives classified
bump stocks, an accessory that attaches to a semiautomatic weapon to increase the rate of
fire, as machine guns for purposes of the National Firearms Act and the federal statutory
ban on the possession or transfer of new machine guns (Garland v. Cargill).
• Speech: The Court agreed to review a case from the Second Circuit brought by the
National Rifle Association (NRA) against a New York state official who issued guidance
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11073
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
letters urging regulated banks and insurance companies to stop doing business with the
NRA in the wake of a school shooting. The Court granted certiorari to consider if such
action by a government regulator is permissible under the First Amendment (NRA v.
Vullo).
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: The Eleventh Circuit considered whether a debtor fraudulently “concealed”
property from the bankruptcy estate in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), when he split
real property in a way that shielded the valuable portion from the estate. The panel
interpreted “concealed” under § 727(a)(2) to involve knowingly withholding information
about the property or knowingly preventing the property’s discovery. Here, the panel
affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the creditor had not proven a violation of
§ 727(a)(2), where the debtor publicly recorded deeds for the split property, paid taxes for
the whole property, and listed the property in his bankruptcy schedules (PRN Real Estate
& Investments, Ltd. v. Cole).
• *Civil Procedure: The Ninth Circuit found that obstetricians/gynecologists who
regularly performed abortions in cases involving fetuses with genetic abnormalities had
standing to seek an injunction to block the enforcement of an Arizona law criminalizing
the performance of such abortions. The panel decided that plaintiffs identified actual and
imminent injuries based on lost revenues for abortions they could not perform and the
imminent threat of criminal prosecution. Disagreeing with the framework employed by
the Eleventh Circuit, the panel held that contrary to the lower court’s ruling upon remand,
the plaintiffs did not need to tie their economic injury to a constitutional right to establish
standing, but only had to show an injury to their business activity fairly traceable to the
statute, which they did. The panel reversed the lower court and remanded for it to
consider plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on the merits (Isaacson v. Mayes).
• Civil Procedure: A divided Eleventh Circuit held that Florida legislators who passed a
law prohibiting the teaching of critical race theory in public institutions were shielded by
common-law legislative privilege from responding to subpoenas seeking documents to
determine if they had a discriminatory intent in passing the law. The majority held the
district court erred in splitting the subpoena requests into two categories: (1) documents
revealing the legislators’ motivations which it deemed were privileged, and (2) purely
factual documents which it deemed were not. The majority found that the privilege
covered all documents because the purpose of the subpoenas was to determine the
legislators’ intent. The majority declined to extend to a civil suit the Supreme Court’s
decision in United States v. Gillock, which held that the legislative privilege may yield in
the enforcement of federal criminal statutes (Pernell v. Fla. Bd. of Governors of State
Univ.).
• Environmental Law: The Eighth Circuit vacated an Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) order that banned the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops, after finding the decision
to ban the insecticide was arbitrary and capricious. The EPA’s decision followed a 2021
order by the Ninth Circuit directing the agency act within 60 days to revoke all tolerances
of chlorpyrifos residue in or around food, or to modify tolerances in a way the agency
determined with reasonable certainty would not result in harm from aggregate exposure.
The Eighth Circuit characterized the EPA’s decision to ban chlorpyrifos as arbitrary and

Congressional Research Service
3
capricious, as it did not consider whether it could safely retain some chlorpyrifos
tolerances (Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers Ass’n v. Regan).
• Firearms: In consolidated cases, a divided Seventh Circuit declined to block
enforcement of legislation enacted by the State of Illinois, along with similar ordinances
adopted by several municipalities, that generally ban the possession of certain
semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. Plaintiffs sought to preliminarily
enjoin these laws on Second Amendment grounds, but the majority decided that, at this
stage, the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of the challenge under the two-
step analytical framework announced by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle &
Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen’s first-step, the majority understood bearable
“Arms” protected by the Second Amendment to include those in common use for a lawful
purpose, not weapons like machine guns that can be reserved for military use. The
majority concluded that the firearms and feeding devices identified in the challenged
legislation do not enjoy Second Amendment protections, as they are more like military-
grade weaponry than the type of weapons commonly used for self-defense. Further, the
majority decided that, even if the items had enjoyed some Second Amendment protection
that required the court to proceed to Bruen’s second-step, the challenged restrictions were
still likely consistent with the historical practice of constitutionally permissible firearms
regulations (Bevis v. City of Naperville; Herrera v. Raoul; Barnett v. Raoul).
• Intellectual Property: Reversing the lower court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, the
Ninth Circuit allowed a choreographer to go forward with his suit alleging that a video
game developer infringed his registered copyright of choreographic work by allegedly
copying a combination of movements repeated throughout the choreographed work. In so
doing, the court held that while individual choreographic elements, including poses, are
unprotected in isolation, the composition and arrangement of such poses and other
elements can be copyrightable. Analogizing to music copyright cases, the panel decided
that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that animations of the video game developer were
substantially similar to the copyright-protected aspects of his choreography, and
remanded for further proceedings, including to decide the appropriate level of copyright
protection to which the plaintiff’s work is entitled (Hanagami v. Epic Games, Inc.).
• Securities: The Second Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion when it
ordered disgorgement from a securities fraud defendant under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5) and
§ 78u(d)(7), which allow for equitable relief, without making a predicate finding that the
defrauded investors had suffered a pecuniary harm, as required by traditional equitable
limitations. The panel also held the district court erred by failing to credit the value of
securities surrendered by the defendant against the total disgorgement award. The court
of appeals vacated the lower court’s decision and remanded for a finding as to whether
the investors suffered a pecuniary loss and, if so, revaluation of the disgorgement award
taking into account the surrendered securities (Sec. Exch. Comm’n v. Govil).
• Securities: The Fifth Circuit held that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting a final rule requiring companies to report
share repurchase data and disclose the reason why they repurchased shares of their own
stock. The SEC justified the final rule as necessary to decrease investor uncertainty about
possible improper motivations underlying buybacks, such as increasing executive
compensation to the detriment of shareholders. The panel held that the SEC failed to
adequately show that opportunistic or improperly motivated buybacks are a genuine
problem even under its theory of investor uncertainty, and the agency also failed to
adequately respond to comments suggesting means to quantify the rule’s costs and
benefits or substantiate the rule’s benefits. Rather than vacate the rule, the panel

Congressional Research Service
4
remanded with directions that the SEC correct defects in the rule within 30 days
(Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. SEC).
• Speech: A divided Ninth Circuit held that a state-owned California fairground, whose
guidelines limited “free speech activities”—defined as leafletting, picketing, or gathering
signatures—to designated “free expression zones,” did not violate the First Amendment
rights of a person hoping to distribute religious tokens to festival goers outside the
designated areas. The panel held the enclosed area of the fairgrounds was not a public
forum during the privately organized, ticketed festival so the state could restrict “free
speech activities” within that area. The panel further found that while the exterior area of
the fairgrounds, which included the designated “free expression zones” outside the entry
gates, was a public forum under the California Constitution, limiting the area where “free
speech activities” could take place was a reasonable “time, place, and manner” restriction
(Camenzind v. Cal. Expo. & State Fair).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia
Rosemary W. Gardey
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
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.

LSB11073 · VERSION 1 · NEW