Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (May 13–May 19, 2024)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (May 13–May 19, 2024)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(May 13–May 19, 2024)
May 20, 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 opinions in three cases for which it heard arguments:
• Arbitration: A unanimous Court ruled that when a district court determines that claims
raised in a suit are arbitrable, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act mandates that the
district court stay the case while arbitration is pending, leaving the court with no
discretion to dismiss the suit (Smith v. Spizzirri).
• Consumer Protection: In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the statute that
authorizes the funding mechanism for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
as consistent with the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Under 12 U.S.C. § 5497,
the CFPB communicates its funding needs to the Federal Reserve, and the Federal
Reserve transfers the requested funding to the CFPB so long as the amount does not
exceed a statutory cap. The majority held that the Appropriations Clause requires only
that Congress authorize an expenditure from a specified source for a designated purpose,
and that Section 5497 meets that test (CFPB v. Cmty. Fin. Servs. Ass’n of Am., Ltd.).
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11167
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
• Labor & Employment: In a 9-0 ruling, the Court held that 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A)’s
60-day filing deadline for a federal employee to seek review of a final decision of the
Merit Systems Protection Board by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is
not jurisdictional, and that the filing deadline is subject to exceptions such as equitable
tolling (Harrow v. Dep't of Def.).
The Court also took action on an emergency application:
• Election Law: Over the dissent of three Justices, the Court granted an emergency
application to stay a district court’s order pending appeal to the Court. The order had
blocked Louisiana from relying on a new congressional redistricting map that establishes
two majority-Black congressional districts for the 2024 election after a finding from the
lower court that the map violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause
because it established an impermissible racial gerrymander. The challenged map was
drawn after an earlier proposed map—which had established a majority-Black district—
had been found to impermissibly dilute the votes of Black Louisianans in violation of the
Voting Rights Act. The stay of the lower court order will remain in place pending further
action by the Court, likely meaning that the new congressional redistricting map
establishing two majority-Black congressional districts will be in effect for the 2024
elections (Robinson v. Callais).
Decisions of the U.S. Courts 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 nonuniform application of the law among the circuits.
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Second Circuit joined other circuits in holding that the
crime of robbery under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, does not contain a specific
intent element that is present in common law definitions of robbery. As a result, the
government need not prove that a defendant has the specific intent to steal and
permanently deprive the owner of property, only that the taking of the property was done
knowingly and voluntarily. The circuit panel also held that the Supreme Court’s 2022
decision in United States v. Taylor did not abrogate circuit precedent recognizing a
substantive Hobbs Act robbery offense as a categorical crime of violence subject to a
sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) if done while possessing a firearm
(United States v. Barrett).
• Civil Procedure: The Fifth Circuit joined at least two other circuits in recognizing that a
hospital is not acting under the direction of the federal government when it uses an online
patient portal with tracking pixels that share private health information with third-party
websites. The defendant hospital invoked the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §
1442(a)(1), and removed a state class action to federal court. Under the statute and Fifth
Circuit precedent, a defendant can remove a case to federal court when, among other
things, the defendant acted pursuant to a federal officer’s directions. The Fifth Circuit
concluded that the defendant was not acting pursuant to a federal officer’s directions
when it created the online portal because it was merely complying with federal law and
was not helping the federal government carry out any tasks. Because the federal officer
removal statute did not apply, the Fifth Circuit held that a state court was the proper
forum to hear the dispute (Martin v. LCMC Health Holdings, Inc.).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The D.C. Circuit affirmed a former high-ranking executive
agency official’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 for obstruction of justice. The

Congressional Research Service
3
conviction was based on the official’s repeated falsification of information on annual
financial disclosure forms used to detect potential conflicts of interests. Section 1519
proscribes persons from knowingly falsifying information “with the intent to impede,
obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the
jurisdiction of any department or agency.” The circuit panel rejected the defendant’s
argument that Section 1519 applies only to formal, adversarial, or adjudicative
proceedings. Instead, the panel held that the plain text of Section 1519 and legislative
context of its enactment made clear the statute covered less formal inquiries, including
the agency’s review of the defendant’s financial disclosure forms (United States v.
Saffarinia).
• Environmental Law: A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) renewable fuels standards for 2020, 2021, and 2022. Under
the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program, transportation fuel sold in the
United States must contain specified amounts of renewable fuels. Congress directed the
EPA to set annual percentage standards to achieve statutory volume targets based on
certain factors and projections. The statute requires EPA to adjust the statutory volumes in
some circumstances, such as through the statute’s cellulosic waiver authority and reset
provision. The final rule issued by EPA establishing the 2020-2022 standards was
challenged by a variety of regulated parties, including renewable fuel producers, who
claimed the standards were too low, and petroleum refiners, who claimed that they were
too high. In holding that the EPA complied with the law and reasonably exercised its
discretion in setting the standards, the circuit panel majority upheld the total renewable
fuel, cellulosic biofuel, and advanced biofuel volumes (including the EPA’s application of
the cellulosic waiver and reset provisions), the agency’s new formula for calculating the
annual percentage standards, and a supplemental standard established to address an
earlier court ruling (Sinclair Wyoming Ref. Co. LLC v. EPA).
• Health: A divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit held that a health insurance provider can
be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it denies coverage for
certain types of medical care to a transgender employee because the employee is
transgender. The defendant employer denied the plaintiff’s vaginoplasty request, which
her health care providers determined was medically necessary surgery. The panel
majority affirmed that this denial was facially discriminatory and violated Title VII
because the denial was a blanket refusal of coverage for gender-affirming surgery and
transgender employees are the only plan participants who would seek this kind of
surgery. Therefore, the court concluded the defendants were denying coverage based on
transgender status (Lange v. Hous. Cnty., Ga.).

Congressional Research Service
4
• Immigration: The Fourth Circuit held that a petitioner’s conviction under D.C. law for
attempted second degree child sexual abuse was “a crime of child abuse” that made him
removable from the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
Section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) does not define “a crime of child abuse”; employing principles
of statutory interpretation, the Fourth Circuit defined it as an act or omission that either
causes injury to a child or creates a sufficiently high risk that a child will be injured. The
court rejected petitioner’s argument that attempted offenses do not fall within the
meaning of “a crime of child abuse.” The court explained that an attempted injury upon a
child meets that definition so long as the underlying offense requires a likelihood or
reasonable probability of harm to a child. Given that criminal attempt under D.C. law
requires an act that comes within “dangerous proximity” of completing a crime, the court
held that the petitioner’s attempted child sexual abuse offense sufficiently posed a
reasonable probability of harm and fell within the meaning of “a crime of child abuse.”
Additionally, the court rejected the notion that Congress did not intend to include attempt
offenses within the broad scope of Section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) because it did not expressly
refer to them in the statute, holding that context indicated that Congress did not intend its
silence as exclusion (Cruz v. Garland).
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): A divided D.C. Circuit panel held that 2017
communications between executive branch agencies and Members of Congress and their
staff regarding possible legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act were not “intra-
agency memorandums or letters” exempted from FOIA’s disclosure requirements. The
D.C. Circuit and some other circuits have endorsed the “consultant corollary” doctrine,
under which FOIA’s exemption of certain “intra-agency” communications also protects
certain materials that have been supplied to an agency by external consultants and used
by the agency in its deliberative processes. The circuit panel decided that the Supreme
Court had narrowed the application of the doctrine so that it extends at most to
documents shared with an agency by outside persons who have no independent stake in
the matter being considered. The panel held that Members of Congress and their staff
represented their own interests when communicating with the agencies on the potential
healthcare legislation, so the FOIA exemption did not apply. The court explicitly declined
to decide whether Members and their staff could ever satisfy the consultant corollary
(Am. Oversight v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs.).
• Public Benefits: The Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s dismissal of a suit brought
by Texas residents seeking continued payment under the Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance program (PUA) following Texas’s June 2021 withdrawal from the program.
The PUA was a temporary unemployment assistance program established by the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, under which the
Secretary of Labor provided unemployment assistance to covered persons, through early
September 2021, by way of participation agreements with states that administered the
program and were reimbursed for its costs. The court held that Texas residents were not
eligible for PUA benefits after Texas withdrew from the participation agreement, as the
governing statute directed the Secretary to provide funds to states that agreed to
administer the program, not to individuals directly (Ireland v. United States).

Congressional Research Service
5
• Veterans: A divided Federal Circuit panel held that, in calculating a veteran’s additional
special monthly compensation (SMC) on account of “disability resulting from a personal
injury suffered ... in line of duty ... during a period of war,” the Board of Veterans’
Appeals should have considered the petitioner’s entitlement to multiple SMC increases
on account of having multiple qualifying disabilities. The majority held that the
applicable regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(f)(3), did not limit a qualifying veteran to one
SMC increase, but set forth an entitlement that could apply multiple times subject only to
a statutory cap (Barry v. McDonough).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia
Alejandra Aramayo
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
Legislative Attorney

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.

LSB11167 · VERSION 1 · NEW