Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (April 1–April 7, 2024)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (April 1–April 7, 2024)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(April 1–April 7, 2024)
April 8, 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. Court of Appeals
Topic headings marked with an asterisk (*) indicate cases where 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 held that 11 U.S.C. § 109(a), which specifies that
“only a person that resides or has a domicile, a place of business, or property in the
United States . . . may be a debtor under this title,” does not apply to cases brought under
Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which addresses cases of cross-border insolvency.
The panel described this ruling as controlled by binding circuit precedent, while noting
that its interpretation was in tension with the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code. The
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11144
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
court also observed that its position conflicted with that of the Second Circuit, which held
that the entirety of Chapter 1 of the Bankruptcy Code, including Section 109(a), applies
to Chapter 15 proceedings (In re Al Zawawi).
• *Criminal Law & Procedure: Citing circuit precedent, the Seventh Circuit held that
under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Stinson v. United States, the Sentencing
Commission’s official commentary interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines is binding,
unless it is based on a plainly erroneous reading or is inconsistent with the relevant
Sentence Guideline provision, or violates the Constitution. Five other circuits have joined
the Seventh Circuit in this view. An equal number of circuits have disagreed, deciding
that the Supreme Court’s post-Stinson decision in Kisor v. Wilkie means that deference is
owed to the Commission’s commentary only when the Guideline provision the
commentary interprets is ambiguous (United States v. White).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: In a per curiam opinion, an Eleventh Circuit panel
affirmed a district court’s second commitment order of a criminal defendant found to be
mentally incompetent to stand trial. The panel held that the statute governing mental
competency determinations, 18 U.S.C. § 4241, places no limit on when and how often
competency proceedings may be sought for a defendant. The panel also ruled that the
maximum four-month period for which a defendant may be held under Section
4241(d)(1) does not begin when the defendant is put in the Attorney General’s custody
under the district court’s commitment order, but starts when the defendant is then
involuntarily hospitalized (United States v. Alhindi).
• Immigration: The Fourth Circuit rejected several criminal defendants’ constitutional
challenge to their indictment for illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. The defendants argued that Section 1326 violates the Fifth Amendment’s
equal protection principles because Congress enacted a 1929 predecessor statute out of
racially discriminatory animus. Applying judicial precedent that constitutional defects
caused by discriminatory animus can be cured by later enactments untainted by animus,
the court held that the 1952 enactment of Section 1326 was the proper point of reference.
Joining other circuits that have addressed similar challenges, the Fourth Circuit
determined that the defendants failed to show that Congress enacted Section 1326 with a
racially discriminatory motive (United States v. Sanchez-Garcia).
• Immigration: The Fourth Circuit decided it lacked jurisdiction to review immigration
authorities’ decision to deny an alien’s adjustment of status application on terrorism
grounds. 8 U.S.C. § 1252, which mainly addresses federal courts’ jurisdiction to review
final orders of removal, also provides that courts may not review “any other decision or
action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for
which is specified under this subchapter to be in [their] discretion.” The court decided
that a plain reading of 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b), which allows aliens to adjust to lawful
permanent resident status, confirmed that adjustment decisions were discretionary, this
discretion covers immigration authorities’ determination that an applicant was ineligible
for adjustment on terrorism grounds, and the petitioner’s challenge in this case was
therefore was not reviewable (Shaiban v. Jaddou).
• International Law: The Second Circuit held that the Montreal Convention for the
Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, a treaty governing claims
against carriers arising from the international air transportation of persons and cargo,
applies to “contracting carriers” when cargo is damaged in international transport while
in their charge. The court described “contracting carriers” as companies that arrange for

Congressional Research Service
3
the international transportation of persons or cargo by engaging with third parties to
perform the actual carriage (Indem. Ins. of N. Am. v. Unitrans Int'l Corp.).
• National Security: The D.C. Circuit denied in part and granted in part a petition
challenging a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order restricting two
Chinese-owned companies from marketing or selling video surveillance equipment in the
United States. In 2020, the FCC placed the companies’ equipment on a list of products
posing a threat to U.S. national security if used for certain purposes, including for
“physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure.” Congress then passed the
Secure Equipment Act of 2021 (SEA) directing the FCC not to approve the sale or
marketing of equipment on the list, and the FCC thereafter issued an order barring the
companies from selling video surveillance equipment in circumstances described in the
pre-SEA listing. The circuit panel decided that the SEA ratified the covered list and left
no room for the petitioners to challenge their products’ placement on it. However, the
court decided that the definition of “critical infrastructure” in the FCC order
implementing the SEA prohibition was overly broad, and it remanded the order to the
agency to align the definition with governing statutes (Hikvision USA, Inc. v. FCC).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia

Deputy Assistant Director/ALD

Congressional Research Service
4

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.

LSB11144 · VERSION 1 · NEW