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

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

Legal Sidebar

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(July 1–July 7, 2024)
July 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.
Following this edition of the Congressional Court Watcher, the series will convert from a weekly to a
monthly series. The new format will focus primarily on federal appellate court decisions recognizing a
split among the courts on a key legal issue resolved in the case, leading to the non-uniform application of
federal law.
Decisions of the Supreme Court
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its final opinions of the October 2023 term. The Court issued three
decisions in cases for which it heard arguments:
• Administrative Law: The Court resolved a circuit split over how 28 U.S.C. § 2401,
which sets a default six-year statute of limitations for civil actions against the United
States, applies to challenges brought against agency action under the Administrative
Procedure Act. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the statute of limitations is not
triggered when the agency issues the challenged rule but begins when the plaintiff later
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11195
CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
suffers a legal wrong or is otherwise aggrieved by the agency action (Corner Post, Inc. v.
Bd. of Governors).
• Separation of Powers: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court set forth a framework for
assessing a former President’s immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken
while in office. The majority held that former Presidents retain absolute immunity for
official actions involving their core constitutional functions. The majority held that
former Presidents receive at least presumptive immunity for other official acts. Finally,
the majority held that a former President is not immune from prosecution for unofficial
acts. In the case before it, concerning a federal criminal indictment against former
President Trump for allegedly attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, the
Court held that the former President was absolutely immune from charges involving
communications with the Justice Department to allegedly engage in improper election-
related prosecutions, including threatening to remove the acting Attorney General for
resisting the request. The majority also ruled that the lower courts would need to decide,
in the first instance, how the Court’s immunity framework applied to charges relating to
the former President’s actions directed toward Vice President Mike Pence, state officials,
and private parties to allegedly overturn the election results (Trump v. United States).
• Speech: By a 9-0 vote, the Court vacated and remanded cases from the Fifth and
Eleventh Circuits on Texas and Florida laws that would restrict some internet platforms’
ability to moderate user content. The Fifth Circuit reversed a preliminary injunction
halting enforcement of the Texas law, while the Eleventh Circuit upheld a preliminary
injunction blocking provisions of the Florida law. The portion of the Court’s controlling
opinion joined by six Justices held that the lower courts had not conducted an appropriate
analysis of the plaintiffs’ claims that the state laws were facially unconstitutional under
the First Amendment—an analysis that directs the reviewing court to consider whether
the law restricts a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech relative to the
law’s legitimate sweep. The portion of the controlling opinion joined by five Justices
further suggested that editorial judgments influencing the content of Facebook’s News
Feed and YouTube’s homepage were protected expressive activity and that Texas’s stated
interest in changing the mix of viewpoints presented by these feeds was not a legitimate
reason to restrict protected speech (Moody v. NetChoice, LLC; NetChoice, LLC v.
Paxton).
The Court also granted certiorari to consider the following cases next term:
• Criminal Law & Procedure: In consolidated cases from the Fifth Circuit, the Court is
asked to resolve a circuit split over how Section 403(b) of the First Step Act applies to
pending cases regarding violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which establishes heightened
penalties when a “crime of violence” or drug trafficking crime is committed with a
firearm. Section 403(b) provides that the First Step Act's amendments apply to a covered
offense committed before the Act was enacted, so long as the sentence for that covered
offense had not been imposed as of the Act’s date of enactment. The Court is asked
whether Section 403(b) applies to the post-enactment resentencing of a defendant whose
pre-enactment sentence was vacated after the First Step Act became law (Hewitt v. United
States; Duffey v. United States).
• Food & Drug: The Court granted certiorari in a case from the Fifth Circuit that ruled that
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it
denied electronic cigarette manufacturers’ premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) to
sell flavored tobacco products. The Fifth Circuit joined the Eleventh Circuit, which
reviewed similar PMTA denials, in holding FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious

Congressional Research Service
3
and split with the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, which upheld the
FDA's actions in denying other similar electronic cigarette PMTAs (FDA v. Wages &
White Lion Invs., LLC).
• Immigration: The Court agreed to hear a case from the Tenth Circuit over the method
for computing the maximum period, after an alien is found removable, during which the
alien may be permitted to voluntarily depart the United States or file an administrative
motion to reopen the proceedings. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2), an immigration judge
provides that an immigration judge may issue an order granting the alien the ability to
voluntarily depart the country instead of ordering their removal and that the voluntary
departure period may last up to 60 days. The Court is asked whether the voluntary
departure period is extended to the next business day when the 60th day falls on a federal
holiday or weekend (Monsalvo Velazquez v. Garland).
• Speech: The Court agreed to hear a case from the Fifth Circuit concerning a Texas law
that requires websites that publish sexual content to verify the age of their visitors and
display certain health warnings about consuming pornography. The Court is asked
whether the lower court appropriately applied rational-basis review to the age-verification
requirement, on account of the law regulating the distribution of pornography to minors,
or whether the law should have been reviewed under strict scrutiny on account of the
burden imposed on adults’ access to protected speech (Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Paxton).
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.
• Antitrust: The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a Broadway
producer’s antitrust claim against a union under the statutory labor exemption derived
from the Clayton and Norris-LaGuardia Acts. The producer alleged that a union
organized an illegal boycott that prevented him from producing shows, but the producer
failed, according to the court, to adequately plead that the statutory labor exemption does
not apply to the union’s conduct. The Second Circuit joined the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth
Circuits in assigning the burden of proving whether the statutory labor exemption applies
to the plaintiff bringing the antitrust claims (Drabinsky v. Actors’ Equity Ass’n).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Seventh Circuit determined that furanyl fentanyl is an
“analogue” of fentanyl for purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vi), which imposes a
10-year minimum mandatory sentence for certain criminal offenses involving an
analogue of fentanyl. The defendant in the case argued that the term “analogue of
[fentanyl]” should be interpreted to apply only to a substance that fits the Controlled
Substances Act’s (CSA’s) definition of a “controlled substance analogue” (21 U.S.C.
§ 802(32)). The term “controlled substance analogue” expressly excludes substances
scheduled under the CSA. Because furanyl fentanyl is in Schedule I, the defendant’s
argument would mean that the mandatory minimum sentence could not apply to the
defendant. The Seventh Circuit rejected that argument, agreeing with a prior decision of
the Second Circuit holding that “controlled substance analogue” is a term of art under the
CSA distinct from the phrase “analogue of [fentanyl]” in § 841(b)(1)(A)(vi). Applying
the ordinary meaning of “analogue of fentanyl,” the panel concluded that furanyl fentanyl
is an analogue of fentanyl (United States v. Williams).

Congressional Research Service
4
• Election Law: The Second Circuit rejected equal protection and First Amendment
challenges to New York campaign finance laws that establish different contribution rules
for political parties and independent, candidate-nominating bodies that lack the statewide
support necessary to be deemed political parties under state law. The challenged rules set
lower individual contribution limits for independent bodies than for political parties, set
lower caps on those bodies’ transfer of funds to candidates, and do not give those bodies
the same allowance given to political parties to accept unlimited contributions for funding
a headquarters, staff, and non-candidate related activities. The panel held that
independent bodies were not similarly situated to political parties to support an equal
protection claim, largely because those bodies were not subject to an array of structural
and operational legal requirements that apply to political parties. In rejecting the
plaintiff’s First Amendment challenge, the panel held that New York had sufficiently
demonstrated the restrictions placed on contributions to independent bodies were
supported by a substantial goal of deterring corruption and were closely drawn to serve
that goal (Upstate Jobs Party v. Kosinski).
• Employee Benefits: The Eleventh Circuit panel reversed the district court’s
determination that an insurance company wrongly denied plaintiff beneficiaries’ claim for
accidental death benefits under an employee benefits plan, which was governed by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), on the basis that the insured’s death
was not an “accident.” The panel joined six other circuits that apply a federal common-
law definition of “accident” when ERISA plans fail to provide a definition. This
common-law definition of “accident” requires courts to consider the subjective
expectations of the insured about whether death or injury is highly likely to occur from
engaging in the conduct that resulted in the loss. If those subjective expectations are
unknowable, the courts should consider an objective analysis of the insured’s
expectations (i.e., whether a reasonable person would have viewed injury or death as
highly likely). The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the insured’s death, which occurred
during a risky mountain climb during dangerous winter conditions, was not an “accident”
(Goldfarb v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.).
• False Claims Act: The Eighth Circuit joined the Eleventh Circuit in holding that the
Excessive Fines Clause applies in qui tam actions brought under the False Claims Act
(FCA) where the government had chosen not to intervene. The Eighth Circuit observed
that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to fines imposed by and payable to the
government, and the court reasoned that it applied to qui tam actions under the FCA
because the government maintained sufficient control over the civil action (including
through the ability to intervene at any time or to settle the action) and because the
government shared in the proceeds of a successful suit. In the case before it, the panel
majority held that the punitive damages imposed by the district court were
disproportionate to the nature of the defendant’s offense and violated the Clause (Grant v.
Zorn).
• Federal Courts: The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's decision that class-action
lawsuits brought by patients against a health care provider in state court were not
removable to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1442(a)(1). For a party to constitute a federal officer under the removal statute, the
circuit panel held that the party must perform a basic governmental task by way of a
federal entity’s delegation of legal authority. Joining other circuit courts that have
considered the issue, the panel concluded that the receipt of federal subsidies in support
of the provider's creation and operation of an online patient portal did not cause the
provider to function as a federal instrumentality (Doe v. Cedars-Sinai Health Sys.).

Congressional Research Service
5
• *Immigration: A divided Fourth Circuit panel upheld the dismissal of a suit brought by a
U.S. citizen and her alien spouse alleging that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) unreasonably delayed adjudicating the spouse’s application to waive his period
of unlawful presence in the United States. Disagreeing with USCIS and at least one other
circuit, the majority held that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which bars judicial review of
“a decision or action” regarding unlawful presence, does not bar review of claims based
on agency inaction or delay. Still, the majority held that neither governing statutes nor
agency regulations required USCIS to adjudicate a waiver application and, thus, that the
court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims (Lovo v. Miller).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia
Dorothy C. Kafka
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
Legislative Attorney

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.

LSB11195 · VERSION 1 · NEW