Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (November 20–November 26, 2023)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (November 20–November 26, 2023)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(November 20–November 26, 2023)
November 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 granted certiorari in three cases, two of which have been consolidated for
review:
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Court agreed to hear an appeal from the Seventh
Circuit on whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution require a jury trial
and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s prior convictions were
“committed on occasions different from one another” to impose an enhanced sentence
under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (Erlinger v. United States).
• Indian Law: The Court agreed to hear two consolidated appeals from the Ninth and
Tenth Circuits to determine whether, under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act, the Indian Health Service (IHS) must pay contract support costs not only
for IHS-funded activities, but also to support a tribe’s expenditure of income collected
from third parties such as private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid (Becerra v. San
Carlos Apache Tribe; Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe).
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11081
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
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.
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Second Circuit held that a conviction for intentional
murder based on a Pinkerton theory of liability—under which a defendant may be
criminally liable for substantive offenses of co-conspirators in furtherance of the
conspiracy—is a categorical crime of violence. The court held that such a prior
conviction may support a subsequent conviction for use of a firearm while committing a
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Gomez v. United
States).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: A divided Eighth Circuit held that a categorical approach
applies to determine if a prior conviction is comparable to or more severe than aggravated
sexual abuse or sexual abuse for purposes of sentencing under the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The majority reasoned that a categorical
approach to the tier analysis determination under 34 U.S.C. § 20911 requires only
consideration of the elements of the prior offense, thereby avoiding encroachment on a
defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights; respecting the benefits of any plea agreement or
bargain; and avoiding inefficiency, unfairness, or unreliability that may exist in the
factual review of prior offenses (United States v. Coulson).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Third Circuit held that a conviction under 21 U.S.C.
§ 848(e)(1)(A) (intentional killing in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise) is
not a “covered offense” under the First Step Act and, therefore, sentences for such
convictions are not eligible for sentence reductions under the act (United States v. Junius;
United States v. Coach).
• Election Law: A divided Eighth Circuit held that there is no private right of action for
plaintiffs to sue for alleged violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint, the majority reasoned that the text of
the VRA expressly assigns enforcement power to the U.S. Attorney General under 52
U.S.C. § 10308(d), and that neither the text nor structure of the VRA could support
recognition of an implied cause of action for private parties. The majority declined to
decide whether private parties could rely on other laws to enforce the VRA, including 42
U.S.C. § 1983, which permits private suits against state governments to enforce rights
secured by the Constitution or federal statute (Arkansas St. Conf. NAACP v. Arkansas Bd.
of Apportionment).
• Election Law: The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court order that blocked the State
of Georgia from administering state-wide public commissioner elections in their current
form. The commissioners each represent one of five districts and are required to live in
the district they represent, but they are chosen by statewide elections and carry out
statewide authorities. The plaintiffs argued that the system impermissibly diluted the
power of Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the VRA, but the court held that the
plaintiffs had not offered a satisfactory remedial plan necessary to bring their claim, as
required by the Supreme Court’s three preconditions in Thornburg v. Gingles for
assessing at-large voting systems for vote dilution. The court characterized the public
commissioners as addressing statewide issues and observed that there was no allegation
that race was a motivating factor in the electoral format used to select them. The court
held that the plaintiffs’ proposed plan—changing Georgia’s statewide electoral system

Congressional Research Service
3
into a single-district system—was unreasonable, as it would require the court to direct
Georgia to replace a chosen system of government (i.e., statewide commissioners) with a
new system (Rose v. Secretary of State for the State of Georgia).
• Employee Benefits: Assuming the viability of a claim for a violation of the Paul
Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008
(MHPAEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3), 1185a(a)(3)(A)(ii), the Tenth Circuit held that to
state a claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the relevant health plan is subject to the
MHPAEA; (2) a specific treatment limitation on mental health or substance-use disorder
benefits covered by the plan; (3) medical or surgical care covered by the plan that is
analogous to the mental health or substance-use disorder care for which the plaintiff seeks
benefits; and (4) a disparity between the treatment limitation on mental health or
substance-use disorder benefits as compared to the limitations the defendants apply to the
medical or surgical analog (E.W. v. Health Net Life Ins. Co.).
• Environmental Law: The Fifth Circuit vacated the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) denial of a group of small refineries’ requested exemptions from the Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA allows small
refineries to request an exemption from the RFS’s annual obligations “for the reason of
disproportionate economic hardship.” The Fifth Circuit held that the EPA erred in reading
the statute to treat RFS compliance costs as the sole factor to be considered when
assessing “disproportionate economic hardship.” The court held that the CAA’s text
contemplates granting exemptions based on a combination of RFS compliance costs and
other economic factors The court also ruled that the EPA impermissibly applied a new
adjudicative methodology to the petitioners’ exemption request after the petitioners had
submitted their request in reliance on past agency practice (Calumet Shreveport Refin.,
L.L.C. v. EPA).
• Environmental Law: The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that a riverbed
excavation project violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by adding riverbed materials to
the water that were not previously suspended in the water. The appellee claimed that its
river dredge mining activities—which involved sucking water, sediment, and minerals
from a river and discharging some of that material back into the river—did not require a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit because the activities
did not add pollutants to the river. The court disagreed, finding that the process added
material to the water that was otherwise deposited in the riverbed and therefore came
under the CWA’s scope. Deferring to the EPA’s and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’
interpretation of the statute and implementing regulations, the court further held that the
processed material at issue was a pollutant, not dredged or fill material, thus requiring
acquisition of an NPDES permit before the discharge (Idaho Conservation League v.
Poe).
• Firearms: A divided Fourth Circuit held that Maryland’s handgun-licensure law, which
requires prospective owners to first acquire a qualification license that may take up to 30
days to be approved, violated the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s Bruen
test. The majority decided that Maryland failed to identify a “historical analogue” for the
requirement. The majority reasoned that the law had the effect of prohibiting all people
from acquiring handguns until they had proved they were not dangerous, which imposed
a different burden than historical analogues identifying categories of dangerous
individuals to be disarmed (Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Moore).
• Intellectual Property: The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
failure to issue a final written decision in a post-grant review of a patent within the one-

Congressional Research Service
4
year deadline under 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(c) did not divest the
Board of jurisdiction over the proceeding. The court reasoned that, in the absence of any
contrary indication in the statute or legislative history, the Board retained authority to
issue a final written decision notwithstanding a missed statutory deadline (Purdue
Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharma., Inc.).
• Torts: The Second Circuit held that the Federal Aviation Act (FAAct) did not preempt
state law tort claims arising from a fatal military helicopter crash because the FAAct
exempted military aircraft from its standards. The court nevertheless remanded the case
to the district court, explaining that a fact-intensive inquiry was required to determine if
the claims were barred by the military contractor defense (Jones v. Goodrich Pump &
Engine Control Sys., Inc.).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia
Christina L. Shifton
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
Section Research Manager

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.

LSB11081 · VERSION 1 · NEW