Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (December 26, 2023–January 1, 2024)
Legal Sidebari
Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(December 26, 2023–January 1, 2024)
January 2, 2024
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
The Supreme Court did not issue any opinions or agree to hear any new cases last week.
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 Ninth Circuit reversed a former Member of
Congress’s criminal conviction for making false statements to federal agents under 18
U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), deciding that the venue for his criminal trial was improper. As part
of an investigation into whether the Member had received illegal campaign contributions
from a foreign national through conduit donors in Los Angeles, the Member was
interviewed at his home in Nebraska and his lawyer’s office in Washington, DC. The
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11099
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
Member was charged under Section 1001(a)(2) with making false statements to federal
agents during those interviews. Although the case was brought in the Central District of
California rather than either of the locations where the allegedly false statements were
made, the trial court held that the venue was proper because the statements had an effect
on a federal investigation occurring within the district. The circuit court decided that this
effects-based test for venue was inconsistent with the text of Section 1001(a)(2) and
constitutionally invalid. The circuit panel’s reversal of the Member’s conviction was
without prejudice to a possible retrial in a proper venue (United States v. Fortenberry).
• Federal Courts: The Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that a suit brought
by patients against a health care provider in state court was not removable to federal court
under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). For a party to constitute
a federal officer under the removal statute, the court held that the party must perform a
basic governmental task by way of a federal entity’s delegation of legal authority. The
court concluded that the receipt of federal subsidies in support of the provider’s creation
and operation of an online patient portal did not cause the provider to function as a
federal instrumentality (Doe v. BJC Health Sys.).
• Labor & Employment: A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel vacated as moot an earlier
ruling over the lawfulness of a since-rescinded executive order mandating that federal
contractors ensure their workforces are vaccinated against COVID-19. President Biden
had issued the order under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949,
which gives the President general authority to prescribe contracting policies. In the earlier
ruling, which had created a circuit split, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel had allowed
enforcement of the order, rejecting arguments that the order violated the major questions
doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly if it wants an agency to have authority
on an issue of major political or economic significance. Following that earlier ruling, the
contractor mandate was rescinded and the Supreme Court vacated on mootness grounds
three judgments in similar vaccine mandate cases. The Ninth Circuit panel decided that
these developments warranted dismissal of the present case and vacatur of the opinion
upholding the contractor mandate’s lawfulness (Mayes v. Biden).
• Property: Following the recusal of a panel member, the Ninth Circuit withdrew the
panel’s earlier opinion and issued a new opinion reaching the same conclusion in a case
involving the Alaska Railroad Corporation, a state-owned corporation that operates
Alaska’s railroad system. As in the withdrawn opinion, the new opinion held that the
Alaska Railroad Corporation could deny homeowners in an Anchorage subdivision
access to a portion of an airstrip next to the railroad. The court ruled that the federal
government had reserved a right-of-way over a corridor of land alongside the Alaska
Railroad track when it enacted the 1914 Alaska Railroad Act to authorize the Alaska
Railroad’s construction. The federal government later transferred most of its property
rights over the railroad to the Alaska Railroad Corporation. The court ruled the conveyed
rights enabled the corporation to deny homeowners access to portions of the airstrip that
overlapped with the railroad’s right-of-way (Alaska R.R. Corp. v. Flying Crown
Subdivision Addition No. 1 & Addition No. 2 Prop. Owners Ass'n).
Congressional Research Service
3
Author Information
Michael John Garcia
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
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.
LSB11099 · VERSION 1 · NEW