Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (January 16–January 21, 2024)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (January 16–January 21, 2024)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(January 16–January 21, 2024)
January 23, 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.
• Bankruptcy: In a case arising from cryptocurrency exchange company FTX’s Chapter
11 bankruptcy proceedings, the Third Circuit decided that the bankruptcy court
improperly denied the U.S. Trustree’s motion to appoint an examiner to investigate FTX
management’s role in the multi-billion-dollar company’s collapse. The circuit court held
that 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(2) imposes a nondiscretionary requirement on a bankruptcy
court to appoint an examiner when requested by the U.S. Trustee or a party of interest
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11109
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
when the debt’s “total fixed, liquidated, unsecured debt” is more than $5 million, as was
the case here (In re FTX Trading Ltd.).
• Bankruptcy: The Fourth Circuit held that a provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.
§ 523(a)(6), which makes debts arising from the “willful and malicious injury” of another
nondischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings, applied to the principal owed by a debtor
under a pre-suit settlement agreement with a creditor he had assaulted. However, the
court held that interest accrued from late payments and attorney’s fees incurred from
enforcing the settlement agreement were dischargeable (In re Hilgartner).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Eleventh Circuit rejected constitutional challenges to
18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3), which makes it a crime to impede law enforcement officers who
are lawfully carrying out their official duties during a civil disorder affecting interstate
commerce. Affirming the defendant’s conviction under Section 231(a)(3) for smashing
the window of a police car blocking protestors from walking onto an interstate highway,
the court held that (1) Congress did not exceed its Commerce Clause authority in
enacting the law; (2) Section 231(a)(3) was not facially overbroad, as it did not cover a
substantial amount of expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment; (3) the
statute was not a constitutionally impermissible content-based regulation of speech under
the First Amendment; and (4) the law was not unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause (United States v. Pugh).
• Immigration: The Fifth Circuit agreed to rehear en banc a case involving a preliminary
injunction directing the State of Texas to halt the installation of a floating barrier in the
Rio Grande, which is intended to deter unauthorized immigration, and to reposition the
barrier onto the Texas-side riverbank. The Fifth Circuit vacated the panel’s opinion,
which this Congressional Court Watcher previously discussed, and ordered the case to be
reheard en banc with oral argument to be scheduled for a future date (United States v.
Abbott).
• Firearms: A divided Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania’s effective ban on 18- to 20-
year-olds carrying firearms outside the home during a state of emergency violated the
Second Amendment, remanding the case with instructions to enjoin enforcement of the
restrictions. In deciding whether the state ban violated the Second Amendment, the court
applied the framework set out by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol
Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, which asks whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers
the regulated conduct and, if so, whether the government can point to a historical
analogue of the challenged firearm restriction. The circuit panel majority determined that
the relevant historical period for identifying analogues under Bruen is the time of the
Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791, not when the Second Amendment’s
protections were made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's
ratification in 1868. The panel majority held that 18- to 20-year-olds were presumptively
among “the People” understood to be protected by the Second Amendment and that the
state did not identify a sufficient Founding-era analogue to the challenged Pennsylvania
law (Lara v. Comm’r Penn. State Police).
• Maritime Law: The Ninth Circuit upheld the convictions of two defendants for violating
the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) after determining that the statute’s
rule for when a vessel can be considered stateless does not run afoul of international law.
The MDLEA applies to a vessel outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States if
the vessel is “without nationality.” Under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C), a vessel is without
nationality when the individual controlling it claims registry with a nation but “the
claimed nation of registry does not affirmatively and unequivocally assert that the vessel

Congressional Research Service
3
is of its nationality.” The defendants argued that Congress’s constitutional authority to
“define and punish . . . Felonies committed on the high Seas” is limited by international
law principles, and that Section 70502(d)(1)(c) conflicts with international law as to
when a vessel may be treated as stateless. The circuit panel was unable to identify any
tenets of international law that clearly affirmed or rejected the authority of the United
States to exercise jurisdiction over the defendants’ vessels. The panel therefore concluded
the statute was not inconsistent with international law and upheld the defendants’
convictions (United States v. Marin).
• Separation of Powers: The Fifth Circuit held that the for-cause removal protections that
insulate the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from presidential control do
not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The plaintiffs filed suit challenging a
regulation recently promulgated by the CPSC and argued that it is invalid because the
CPSC is unconstitutionally structured due to the Commission’s for-cause removal
protections. The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument and held, consistent with the
Supreme Court’s decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, that for-cause
removal protections for an independent agency headed by a multimember board are
constitutionally permissible. Although the circuit panel indicated that recent Supreme
Court decisions appear to stray from the Court’s reasoning in Humphrey’s, the panel
declined to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB as overruling
Humphrey’s, and it reversed the district court’s holding that the CPSC’s for-cause
removal protections were unconstitutional (Consumers’ Rsch. v. CPSC).
• Torts: The Third Circuit held that the United States was immune from suit by a plaintiff
whose cash property was seized by U.S. customs officials and who sought damages
arising from his inability to use the funds during the period of confiscation. U.S. customs
officials had seized cash from the plaintiff when he returned from a foreign trip under the
initial belief it came from illegal activity. The government returned the money to the
plaintiff with interest two-and-a-half years later. The plaintiff alleged that the confiscation
of his life savings prevented him from doing business and rendered him homeless. The
Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the claim on sovereign
immunity grounds. Although a Federal Tort Claims Act provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c),
permits suit against customs officials for the “loss . . . of property,” the court held that this
exception allows suit when property is injured or lost by customs officials but not suits
based on personal injuries caused by the owner’s inability to use the property while
confiscated (Bah v. United States).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia
Daniel T. Shedd
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer

Congressional Research Service
4

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.

LSB11109 · VERSION 1 · NEW