Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (March 4–March 10, 2024)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (March 4–March 10, 2024)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(March 4–March 10, 2024)
March 11, 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
Last week, the Supreme Court issued one opinion:
• Election Law: In a judgment joined by all nine Justices, the Supreme Court reversed the
Supreme Court of Colorado’s decision that former President Donald Trump is
constitutionally disqualified from holding future office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Section 3 bars persons who took an oath to support the Constitution and
later engage in insurrection from serving in Congress, acting as electors for President or
Vice President, or holding civil or military office at the state or federal level. In the per
curiam opinion, a majority of the Court held that states may enforce Section 3 with regard
to state offices, but only Congress may do so with regard to federal offices. The Court
further held that, pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may
enforce Section 3 through legislation, which must reflect proportionality between the
legislation’s purpose and its means and is subject to judicial review (Trump v. Anderson).
The Supreme Court also took action in response to emergency applications:
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11124
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
• Immigration: On March 4, 2024, Justice Samuel Alito, acting in his Circuit Justice
capacity, issued administrative stays of a Fifth Circuit’s order that would have allowed
Texas to enforce a new law, S.B. 4, permitting the state to arrest, criminally sanction, and
remove aliens who are believed to have crossed into the United States illegally. The
administrative stays give the Court more time to consider an emergency application by
the federal government and a related emergency application asking the Court to vacate
the Fifth Circuit’s order, which had stayed a district court order granting a preliminary
injunction against enforcement of S.B. 4. The administrative stays are set to end on
March 11, 2024 (U.S. v. Texas; Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. McCraw).
Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals
• Bankruptcy: The Eighth Circuit held that an increase in equity in a debtor’s residence
after the filing of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition (involving the repayment of debts) but
before the conversion of that petition to Chapter 7 (involving the liquidation of assets)
became property of her converted bankruptcy estate. The court held that this equity was
part of the debtor’s converted estate. In support, the panel cited 11 U.S.C. § 348(f)(1)(A),
which states that property of the converted estate includes property of the estate under the
debtor’s control on the date of conversion, and 11 U.S.C. § 541(a), which provides that
the estate includes “[p]roceeds, product, offspring, rents, or profits of or from property of
the estate” (In re Goetz).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Ninth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 880—which,
among other things, criminalizes receipt of money or property obtained through violation
of federal extortion statutes “knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained”—does
not require knowledge that the money or property was obtained through extortion.
Affirming the defendants’ convictions under Section 880, the court construed “knowing
the same” to refer to the money or property received, rather than to the portion of the
statute referencing particular extortion offenses. Thus, the court held that knowledge that
the money or property at issue was unlawfully obtained is sufficient for conviction under
the statute (United States v. Lemus).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: A Second Circuit panel ruled that federal prosecutors
sufficiently alleged a quid pro quo in the indictment of a state senator charged with
federal funds bribery and honest services wire fraud, among other things, in connection
with campaign contributions. The panel held that the lower court erred in treating the
Supreme Court’s decisions in McCormack v. United States and Evans v. United States as
establishing separate quid pro quo tests for bribery offenses depending on whether they
involved campaign contributions (as occurred in McCormick, but not in Evans). The
Second Circuit joined other circuits in treating Evans as a clarification of McCormick that
likewise applied to cases involving campaign contributions. The panel held that under
McCormick and Evans, if a quid pro quo is required for conviction under a federal
statute, it may be inferred from the words and actions of the official and payor and need
not be expressly stated (United States v. Benjamin).
• Firearms: The First Circuit held that a Rhode Island law banning possession of certain
large capacity feeding devices or magazines (LCMs) (i.e., holding more than 10 rounds
of ammunition) for firearms likely did not violate the Second Amendment. Evaluating the
Second Amendment claim under the framework established by the Supreme Court in New
York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court asked first whether the plain text
of the Second Amendment covered the regulated items as “arms,” and second, whether
regulation or prohibition of the items was “consistent with this Nation’s historical

Congressional Research Service
3
tradition of firearm regulation.” Assuming without deciding that LCMs are arms, the
court held that banning LCMs was consistent with historical analogues in terms of “how
and why [they] burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense,” pointing to
bans of other weapons such as Bowie knives and sawed-off shotguns not primarily used
for self-defense (Ocean State Tactical, LLC, v. Rhode Island).
• Immigration: The Eighth Circuit dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction a case
seeking review of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) decision to delay
adjudication of applications for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Although
the Department of State had listed the petitioners’ class of visa as available based on their
priority date, the agency changed the priority date, effectively delaying the adjudication
of their applications pursuant to USCIS regulation. The court construed both
Section 1255(a), which provides that the Attorney General may adjust status of certain
aliens “in his discretion and under regulations as he may prescribe,” and 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which provides that no court has jurisdiction to review certain
discretionary decisions of the Attorney General. The court held that both the regulation
and the delay were within the discretion of the Attorney General granted in
Section 1255(a), and Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) therefore barred the court from hearing the
case (Thigulla v. Jaddou).
• Labor & Employment: The Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary
judgment to oilfield technicians seeking overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). One exception to the FLSA requirement to pay overtime compensation allows
for an alternative compensation arrangement known as a Belo plan (29 U.S.C. § 207(f)).
Under a Belo plan, an employer can set a guaranteed weekly wage for all hours worked if
an employee’s job duties “necessitate irregular hours of work.” The court concluded that
this criterion only applies when the nature of the work inherently requires irregularity,
meaning it does not apply when the employee or employer controls the irregularity of the
hours. Finding a genuine dispute of fact as to the driving factors behind the irregular
work schedule, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and
remanded for further proceedings (Jones v. Producers Serv. Corp.).
• Labor & Employment: The Federal Circuit affirmed an arbitrator’s decision that the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) properly terminated a federal employee during the employee’s
probationary period, rejecting the claim that the termination was invalid because the
employee received notice of the termination after the end of the probationary period. The
court held that 5 C.F.R. § 315.804(a), which requires an agency to provide written notice
to an employee who is terminated during a probationary or trial period, does not require
the employee to actually receive that notice before the end of the probationary period
when the agency makes reasonable efforts to timely deliver the notice (Lewis v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons).
• Public Health: The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s permanent injunction
barring South Carolina from terminating its Medicaid provider agreement with Planned
Parenthood. This was a repeat affirmation by the Fourth Circuit—after the Supreme
Court had vacated and remanded a similar decision in the same case (discussed in an
earlier edition of the Congressional Court Watcher). Determining that its prior holding
was consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Health & Hospital Corp. of
Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski, the Fourth Circuit held that Medicaid’s free-choice-
of-provider provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23), codified Congress’s desire to extend a
choice of medical providers to Medicaid beneficiaries, and that that right is enforceable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Kerr).

Congressional Research Service
4
• Securities: The Second Circuit held that a lower court improperly dismissed plaintiffs’
suit under U.S. securities laws against Binance, a global cryptocurrency exchange. The
panel held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged domestic activity subject to these laws
because they claimed (1) their transactions occurred over the company’s U.S.-based
servers, and (2) they entered terms of use agreements with Binance, placed purchase
orders, and sent payments from the United States. The panel also ruled that the statutes of
limitations for seeking damages under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act or the
rescission of a contract under Section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act was triggered
when the plaintiffs purchased or committed to purchase unregistered securities and that
some of the plaintiffs’ claims fell within the limitations period (Williams v. Binance).
• Sovereign Immunity: The D.C. Circuit dismissed a suit against Iran and Syria for
injuries arising from a terrorist attack by a member of Hamas on the ground that the
terrorism exception to foreign state immunity in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
(FSIA) did not apply. FSIA generally grants foreign states immunity from suit, but 28
U.S.C. § 1605A(a) permits federal courts to hear personal injury claims against
designated state sponsors of terrorism for damages arising from “an act of . . .
extrajudicial killing” or “the provision of material support or resources for such an act.”
The court held that, for the Section 1605A(a)(1) exception to apply, the injured victim’s
killing must have occurred. Because that did not happen in this case, the court concluded
that Iran and Syria are immune from suit under FSIA (Borochov v. Islamic Republic of
Iran).
• Speech: The Fifth Circuit vacated in part and affirmed in part a district court injunction
preventing enforcement of Texas H.B. 1181, which requires commercial pornographic
websites to verify the age of their visitors and display certain health warnings about
consuming pornography. First, the court vacated the injunction as to the age-verification
requirement. Analyzing the requirement under rational basis review, the court held that
the age-verification requirement was rationally related to the Texas government’s
legitimate interest in keeping minors from accessing pornography and therefore would
likely not violate the First Amendment. Second, the court upheld the injunction as to the
required health warnings. The court held that the health warnings likely compelled the
plaintiffs’ speech in violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme
Court in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra. The court further held
that Section 230 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) did not preempt H.B.
1181 (Free Speech Coal. Inc. v. Paxton).
• Speech: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s order preliminarily enjoining
enforcement of Florida’s Individual Freedom Act, a law prohibiting employers from
holding a mandatory workplace training that endorses certain beliefs regarding race,
color, sex, or national origin. Rejecting arguments that the law regulates the conduct of a
meeting rather than the speech occurring at that meeting, the court held that the Florida
law targeted speech based on its content and penalized particular viewpoints, therefore
subjecting it to strict constitutional scrutiny. The court held that the law failed strict
scrutiny and violated the First Amendment because it limited more speech than necessary
to serve the state’s professed interest in combating discrimination (Honeyfund.Com Inc. v.
Governor of Florida).

Congressional Research Service
5
Author Information

Jason O. Heflin
Michael John Garcia
Legislative Attorney
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD

Erin H. Ward

Coordinator of Research Planning/ALD

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.

LSB11124 · VERSION 1 · NEW