Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (June 17–June 23, 2024)

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (June 17–June 23, 2024)

Legal Sidebar

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(June 17–June 23, 2024)
June 24, 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 nine cases for which it heard arguments:
• Criminal Law & Procedure: In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that if a person brings suit
against a government entity raising a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim,
probable cause supporting one criminal charge in the prosecution does not categorically
bar the malicious prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge (Chiaverini v.
City of Napoleon).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous
jury that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from
one another” to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (Erlinger v. United States).
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11182
CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Court issued a decision addressing the application of
its 2019 ruling in Nieves v. Bartlett. In Nieves, the Court held that a First Amendment
retaliatory arrest claim will not succeed if there was probable cause to make the arrest,
unless the claim is supported by objective evidence that police had declined to arrest
others in similar circumstances when they were not engaged in the same sort of protected
speech. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that a person raising a retaliatory arrest claim
might satisfy this evidentiary burden by presenting evidence, for example, that he or she
was the only person arrested for engaging in a particular type of conduct under a long-
standing criminal prohibition. The Court held that the person need not provide specific
evidence that others who engaged in the same conduct in virtually identical
circumstances were not arrested (Gonzalez v. Trevino).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: In a 5-4 opinion, the court held that when an expert
witness for the prosecution gives testimony that relies on findings of a nontestifying
forensic analyst, and the testifying witness’s conclusions are dependent on the accuracy
of the analyst’s findings, those findings have been introduced for their truth and implicate
the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. As a result, testimonial out-of-court
statements by a forensic analyst may not be introduced in a criminal trial unless the
analyst is unavailable and the defendant had an earlier chance to cross-examine the
analyst (Smith v. Arizona).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that when a criminal
offense requires the government to prove as an element that the defendant knew she was
carrying illegal drugs, Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), which generally bars expert
opinion testimony on whether a criminal defendant had a requisite mental state, does not
prohibit an expert witness for the government from testifying that drug couriers typically
know they are carrying drugs (Diaz v. United States).
• Firearms: In an 8-1 ruling, the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the
possession of firearms by persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders,
is consistent with the Second Amendment and was constitutional as applied to the
challenging party. The Court applied the text-and-history-based test announced in New
York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which is used to assess whether a law
violates the Second Amendment. The Bruen Court decided that if a government
restriction applies to conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, the
Constitution presumptively protects that conduct and the restriction can only be justified
if the government shows it is consistent with a historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Here, the majority underscored that a historical analogue must be “relevantly similar,”
but not necessarily identical, to the challenged restriction. The Court decided that Section
922(g)(8) aligned with a historical tradition of temporarily disarming persons who posed
a clear threat of physical violence to others (United States v. Rahimi).
• Immigration: The Court ruled 6-3 that the State Department’s denial of a visa
application for the alien husband of a U.S. citizen was not subject to judicial review. The
doctrine of consular nonreviewability generally precludes judicial review of government
decisions to issue or withhold a visa, but a narrow exception permits a U.S. citizen to
challenge a visa denial that burdens the citizen's constitutional rights. The controlling
opinion of the Court, joined by five Justices, ruled that the U.S. citizen in the case lacked
a procedural or substantive due process right to reside in the United States with her alien
spouse, and therefore the narrow exception to the consular nonreviewability doctrine did
not apply (Dep’t of State v. Munoz).

Congressional Research Service
3
• Interstate Compacts: In a case over which it exercised original jurisdiction, the Court
declined by a 5-4 vote to approve a proposed consent decree between Texas and New
Mexico to end litigation over the allocation of each state’s share of waters under the Rio
Grande Compact. The majority observed that in an earlier decision related to the dispute,
the Court recognized that the federal government had a separate, distinct interest from
Texas in holding New Mexico to its Compact obligations because the Compact is closely
connected to the U.S. operation of the Rio Grande Project. The Court here declined to
approve the consent decree between the two states because it would improperly dispose
of the federal government’s valid claims under the Compact and the government timely
opposed the proposed consent decree (Texas v. New Mexico).
• Tax: The Court decided 7-2 that the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) in the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act of 2017 is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power. The MRT imposes a
one-time tax on certain U.S. shareholders’ pro rata share of the post-1986 untaxed and
undistributed foreign earnings of a specified foreign corporation. The controlling opinion,
joined by five Justices, held that the MRT taxes realized income of the corporation,
attributed to the corporation’s shareholders. Because the Court found that the MRT was a
tax on realized income (that of the corporation), the broader question of whether the
Sixteenth Amendment requires realization to tax income without apportionment among
the states was not at issue, and the Court declined to address it (Moore v. United States).
The Court also granted certiorari to consider the following cases next term:
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The federal circuits are split almost evenly on whether a
criminal defendant can be convicted of mail or wire fraud on a theory of fraudulent
inducement. The Court agreed to hear a case to decide whether using deception to induce
a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if the object of the scheme
is not to inflict economic harm on the alleged victim but is instead to avoid compliance
with statutory, regulatory, or policy interests as material terms of a contract (Kousisis v.
United States).
• False Claims Act: The Court agreed to address a split between the Fifth and Seventh
Circuits regarding whether reimbursement requests made to private, nonprofit
corporations administering federal programs are actionable “claims” under the False
Claims Act (FCA). The FCA defines a “claim,” in part, as a request for money that is
presented to either a federal government agent or a federal contractor, grantee, or funding
recipient, if the federal government provides any portion of the requested money. The
corporation at issue in the case, which subsidizes telecommunications services for
schools and libraries, was created pursuant to authority delegated to the Federal
Communications Commission but is private and financed by private entities (Wisconsin
Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath).
• Labor & Employment: The Court agreed to hear a case to decide the appropriate
standard for assessing whether an employer has demonstrated the applicability of an
overtime exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appropriate evidentiary
standard is the subject of a split among the circuits, with six circuits using a
preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and one circuit—the Fourth—using the more
stringent clear-and-convincing-evidence standard (E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera).
• Securities: The Court agreed to hear a case to determine the appropriate pleading
requirements for plaintiffs who file securities fraud class actions under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act. Specifically, the Court agreed to consider whether
plaintiffs who allege scienter based on allegations regarding internal company documents
must plead with particularity the contents of those documents, and whether plaintiffs can

Congressional Research Service
4
satisfy the act’s falsity requirement by relying on expert opinions in lieu of particularized
allegations of fact (NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB).
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 non-uniform application of the law among the circuits.
• Civil Rights: The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of an equal
protection claim in a case brought by transgender Oklahoma residents alleging
unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of transgender status and sex in the state’s
denial of “sex-designation amendments” on their birth certificates. The court concluded
that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated an equal protection claim because the state’s birth
certificate policy intentionally discriminated based on transgender status and sex, and the
policy failed to withstand rational-basis review (the controlling opinion did not reach the
issue of whether the more stringent intermediate-scrutiny standard applied). The circuit
panel, applying Supreme Court precedent regarding discrimination in Title VII suits,
found that the plaintiffs had met their burden of “negating every conceivable basis” that
may show a legitimate state interest. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of
the plaintiffs’ privacy-related substantive due process claims (Fowler v. Stitt).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Fourth Circuit held that where a record is ambiguous
as to whether a trial court accepted or rejected a plea agreement negotiated between the
government and a criminal defendant under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11(c)(1)(C), the ambiguity must be construed in favor of the defendant. The defendants in
the case asserted that the district court accepted their plea agreements but imposed a
higher sentence than that which was agreed to between the parties. The government
argued that the district court had, in fact, rejected the plea agreements altogether. In
finding that an ambiguity on this question existed, the Fourth Circuit ruled the ambiguity
must be construed in favor of the defendants and that therefore it would deem the district
court to have accepted and been bound by the terms of the plea agreements. Because the
district court failed to adhere to those terms in departing from the agreed-upon sentencing
recommendation, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to reenter the
judgments consistent with those terms (United States v. Dunlap).
• *Criminal Law & Procedure: The Seventh Circuit, in a per curiam decision, concluded
that it remains appropriate to defer to the commentary of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
in determining a sentence for a criminal defendant, confirming a prior ruling that such
commentary can be relied upon. The defendant argued that a 2019 Supreme Court
decision holding that commentary cannot be relied upon where it is inconsistent with the
provisions of law it purports to interpret upended an earlier, general principle that such
commentary may be entitled to deference. Reaffirming prior circuit precedent while
acknowledging a growing circuit split on the matter, the panel interpreted the 2019
Supreme Court decision as merely prohibiting deference to commentary where it violates
the Constitution or federal law or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of,
the guideline. The circuit panel affirmed the district court’s sentence and, in particular, its
reliance on commentary in calculating the total amount of loss attributable to the
defendant’s fraud (United States v. Johnson).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Seventh Circuit affirmed a ruling of the district court
that supervised release revocation proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) do not

Congressional Research Service
5
constitute proceedings guaranteed by the Constitution to be heard by a jury. Ahead of a
court hearing on revoking his supervised release, the defendant moved for a trial by jury
under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment, which the
district court denied. The district court then presided over the hearing without a jury and,
upon concluding the defendant was guilty of several violations, exercised its discretion to
revoke his supervised release. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court’s denial
of the defendant’s motion for a jury trial, ruling that these types of revocation
proceedings do not amount to a “trial of [a] crime” or a “criminal prosecution” for which
a defendant is afforded jury rights under the Constitution (United States v. Carpenter).
• Health: The Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that members of the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force—one of multiple entities that may issue preventive-care
recommendations that insurers must cover under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—are
principal officers whose selection did not undergo the presidential appointment and
Senate confirmation process required by the Appointments Clause. The panel held that on
balance, the Task Force’s structural and decisional independence rendered its members
principal officers even though the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS
Secretary) may exercise some control over the Task Force through the power to remove
its members at will. Although the panel held that the lower court properly enjoined
enforcement of the Task Force recommendations, the panel ruled that the lower court
erred in more broadly vacating all agency actions taken to enforce those requirements and
issuing a nationwide injunction blocking their enforcement. The circuit panel enjoined
the government from enforcing the affected Task Force requirements against the plaintiffs
only. The appeal also concerned the constitutionality of two other administrative entities
that make preventive-care recommendations. The panel suggested that the HHS Secretary
may have the power to cure any Appointments Clause defects with those other two
entities by ratifying their preventive-care recommendations, but it remanded so the lower
court could consider whether the HHS Secretary had properly done so (Braidwood
Mgmt., Inc. v. Becerra).
• *Immigration: The Third Circuit ruled on the meaning and effect of the 30-day deadline
for seeking judicial review of a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) and,
in so doing, contributed to circuit splits on two different issues. The panel held that
Section 1252(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline is a claims-processing rule subject to equitable
tolling. While circuit precedent previously recognized this deadline to be an absolute,
jurisdictional rule, the panel decided that the Supreme Court’s decision in Santos-Zacaria
v. Garland, which interpreted a separate but similar provision as a nonjurisdictional
claims-processing rule, abrogated this precedent. The Third Circuit’s holding that Section
1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule is consistent with the views of the Fifth and Ninth
Circuits but contrary to decisions by the Fourth and Seventh Circuits. The Third Circuit
also widened a circuit split over when an order of removal is “final” under Section
1252(b), joining the majority of reviewing circuits in holding that an order is not final
until a decision is made on the alien’s request for withholding of removal. The panel
acknowledged a split with some circuits that have held that, where an alien is subject to a
reinstated order of removal after unlawfully returning to the United States, the 30-day
clock begins on the date of reinstatement regardless of whether withholding of removal is
requested (Carlos Alberto Inestroza-Tosta v. Att’y Gen.).
• Immigration: A divided Ninth Circuit panel, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the denial
of a motion to dismiss an indictment for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The
petitioner collaterally attacked his underlying 1994 deportation order as fundamentally
unfair, arguing that immigration authorities violated his due process rights by ordering

Congressional Research Service
6
him deported in absentia, despite notice of the hearing being returned as undeliverable or
unclaimed. The panel majority ruled that the government had followed statutory
obligations in effect in 1994 and had reasonably attempted to inform the petitioner by
mailing notice to his last provided address. The majority also rejected the petitioner’s
arguments that here the government should have taken such additional reasonable steps to
inform him of his deportation hearing. The majority held that Supreme Court precedent
that requires a state to take additional reasonable steps to inform an individual when it
plans to sell his property in the case of an undeliverable notice did not apply in the
immigration context (United States v. Rivera-Valdes).
• Immigration: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a decision by the Board of Immigration
Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s denial of a petition to reopen removal
proceedings. The petitioner, who had been ordered removed in absentia, moved to reopen
her removal proceedings on the ground that she did not receive proper notice of the
removal hearing. The Eleventh Circuit held that, because she had failed to provide a
correct address, immigration authorities were excused under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B)
from providing notice of her removal hearing. The court also pointed to implementing
regulations that clarify that it is the petitioner’s obligation to correct any errors in the
address provided (Rosales-Mendez v. U.S. Att’y Gen.).
• Intellectual Property: The First Circuit reversed a ruling of the district court in a case
interpreting the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. The act
entitles the recording artist or artists “featured on [a] sound recording” to 45% of certain
copyright royalties the recording generates. A former member of a Puerto Rican band and
the lead vocalist for many of the band’s songs alleged that he and other members of the
band were “featured” artists entitled to these royalties. The opposing party argued that
only the band, as a distinct legal entity, was the “featured” artist and that the royalties
must go to the sole corporate owner of the band, and not to the band’s individual
members. The court ruled that even though the disputed recordings’ album covers only
referred to the band itself (and not the individual members), the defendant was indeed a
“featured” artist entitled to a share of the royalties (Ithier v. Aponte-Cruz).
• Labor & Employment: The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) decision that had partially denied a government employee’s
request for compensatory and consequential damages for retaliatory action she faced
because of protected whistleblower activity. The panel held that the MSPB erred in
dismissing the whistleblower’s claim for future lost earnings. The MSPB had held that
such earnings are not consequential damages under the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012, 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1). The circuit panel found it unnecessary
to decide whether future lost earnings could be awarded as consequential damages,
because it determined such earnings could be awarded as compensatory damages under
Section 1221(g)(1). Remanding the case, the panel directed that the MSPB use a
preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to determine whether the petitioner satisfied her
burden to prove entitlement to pecuniary compensatory damages in the form of future
lost earnings (Perlick v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs).
• Labor & Employment: The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded in part a district court
decision affirming an MSPB ruling that sustained the suspension of a Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) employee. The court concluded that the MSPB erred by refusing to
review the entirety of the VA’s disciplinary decision and by failing to analyze all of the
so-called Douglas factors when determining the appropriate penalty for employee
misconduct—rejecting the contention that the Department of Veterans Affairs

Congressional Research Service
7
Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 authorized the MSPB’s
departure from this framework (Strickland v. Wilkie).
• Labor & Employment: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment in
favor of an employer in a suit brought under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by a
former employee who was terminated due to unexcused work absences that occurred in
the days prior to the birth of his son. The former employee claimed that his absences were
childbirth-related and that the company interfered with the exercise of his rights under the
FMLA, with his dismissal constituting unlawful retaliation. The panel held that under the
plain text of the FMLA and its implementing regulations, an eligible employee’s
entitlement to up to 12 workweeks of unpaid family leave for the birth of a child begins
on the date of childbirth and ends 12 months immediately thereafter. The panel ruled that
the plaintiff’s unexcused absences did not occur during a period where the FMLA applied
and that the company’s decision to terminate the employee for unexcused absences did
not interfere with his FMLA rights. The panel also decided that, based on the evidence
before it, the district court reasonably concluded that the employer’s proffered reason for
the termination was not pretextual (Tanner v. Stryker Corp. of Michigan).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia
Clay Wild
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
Legislative Attorney

Congressional Research Service
8

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.

LSB11182 · VERSION 1 · NEW