Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (May 28–June 2, 2024)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (May 28–June 2, 2024)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(May 28–June 2, 2024)
June 3, 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 decisions in three cases for which it heard arguments:
• Banking: In a 9-0 decision, the Court vacated a Second Circuit ruling that the National
Bank Act of 1864 preempts New York’s interest-on-escrow law as it applies to federally
chartered banks. The Court held that the lower court did not appropriately apply the
preemption standard set forth in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010 and prior Court rulings. The Court remanded the case for the
lower court to consider whether the challenged state law “prevents or significantly
interferes with” federally chartered bank powers (Cantero v. Bank of Am., N. A.).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit
erred when it granted habeas relief to a death-row inmate. The defendant alleged that his
Sixth Amendment rights were violated based on ineffective assistance of counsel during
criminal sentencing. The Court reinstated the inmate’s capital sentence after deciding the
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11173
CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
circuit court erred in its application of the standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of
counsel claims under Strickland v. Washington (Thornell v. Jones).
• Speech: The Court unanimously ruled that the National Rifle Association (NRA)
plausibly alleged that a New York state official violated the organization’s First
Amendment rights when she issued guidance letters urging state-regulated banks and
insurance companies to stop doing business with the organization in the wake of a school
shooting. The Court reaffirmed earlier rulings that the First Amendment bars government
officials from using their power to punish or suppress speech either directly or through
private intermediaries. The Court remanded the case so the suit could proceed (Nat’l Rifle
Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo).
The Court also granted certiorari to consider a case next term:
• Environmental Law: The Court agreed to hear a case from the Ninth Circuit on whether
permits authorizing the discharge of wastewater under the Clean Water Act’s (CWA’s)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System are enforceable only if they specify
particular discharge limits or whether it is enough for the permits to include generalized
prohibitions on violating CWA water quality standards (City & Cnty. of S.F. v. EPA).
Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals
• Employee Benefits: The Ninth Circuit held that the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), which generally preempts “all State laws insofar as they . . . relate
to” a covered employee benefit plan, preempted state-law contract and fraud claims based
on an out-of-network health care provider’s calls to a plan administrator to verify plan
coverage and obtain preauthorization for medical services. There was no dispute in the
case that the patients and their treatment were covered by the benefit plan, but payment
was denied because the provider engaged in fee forgiving—a practice where the provider
fails to collect deductibles, co-pays, or other financial contributions the participant is
required to pay under the plan. The plaintiff alleged, however, that administrator’s failure
to pay breached an independent contractual obligation incurred by the provider’s
communications with the plan administrator. The court held that recovery through a state
breach of contract claim was preempted by ERISA (Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna
Health & Life Ins. Co.).
• Immigration: In consolidated cases, the Second Circuit decided that lawful permanent
residents subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) during the pendency of
removal proceedings are constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing when detention
becomes unreasonably prolonged. The circuit court observed that the Supreme Court had
decided that due process rights attached to aliens in removal proceedings and may limit
the time that such aliens may be detained pending removal. The Second Circuit held that
these constitutional considerations preclude indefinite detention under Section 1226(c)
without a bond hearing. The court decided that a case-by-case analysis was needed to
determine when an alien’s detention had become unreasonably prolonged and required a
bond hearing, where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that
the alien’s continued detention was necessary (Black v. Decker; G.M. v. Decker).
• Immigration: Joining four other circuits, the Tenth Circuit rejected a constitutional equal
protection challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which criminalizes unlawful alien reentry
following removal from the United States. The criminal defendant alleged that Section
1326, while facially neutral as to race, was impermissibly motivated by discriminatory
animus toward Mexicans and Central and South Americans. The defendant’s equal

Congressional Research Service
3
protection argument significantly relied on legislative history surrounding a predecessor
statute to Section 1326 that was enacted in 1929. Applying judicial precedent holding 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 (along with
amendments made to that law) were the proper point of reference for analysis of the
claim. The court declined to decide the appropriate standard of review of race-based
equal protection challenges raised in the immigration context, concluding that the
defendant’s argument failed regardless of whether it applied the standard advanced by the
defendant or the more deferential standard advanced by the government (United States v.
Amador-Bonilla).
• Labor & Employment: A divided D.C. Circuit panel held that Section 401(c) of the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which affords union office
candidates the ability to disseminate their campaign material to union members, governs
a candidate’s request to buy campaign advertising space in a union magazine. Section
401(c) requires a covered union “to comply with all reasonable requests of any candidate
to distribute by mail or otherwise at the candidate’s expense campaign literature in aid of
such person’s candidacy to all members in good standing.” The majority held that the
union candidate’s magazine publication request was covered by Section 401(c)’s
application to requests to distribute campaign literature “by mail or otherwise.” The
majority remanded so the district court could determine whether the request was
“reasonable” under Section 401(c). The majority also held that requiring publication of
the campaign material at the candidate’s expense would not constitute compelled speech
in violation of the First Amendment (Noble v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO).
• Sovereign Immunity: The D.C. Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on
sovereign immunity grounds of a journalist’s suit seeking records related to the use of
outside consultants by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform (now named the
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability) during a congressional investigation.
Absent a waiver, claims against the federal government and its actors are generally barred
under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The plaintiff’s suit here turned on D.C. Circuit
caselaw recognizing that sovereign immunity did not attach when a claim was brought
alleging a common-law right of access to public records. The circuit court held that the
common-law right did not apply because the requested documents were not public
records that the Committee had a duty to disclose. Because the suit was barred on
sovereign immunity grounds, the court declined to decide whether the suit was also
barred by the Speech or Debate Clause (Schilling v. U.S. House of Representatives).

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.

LSB11173 · VERSION 1 · NEW