Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Apr. 4–Apr. 10, 2022)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent

Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers

(Apr. 4–Apr. 10, 2022)

April 11, 2022

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 of the 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 a decision in one case for which it heard oral arguments:



Criminal Law & Procedure: In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that for a plaintiff to

advance a claim against state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution

in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the plaintiff must show only that the prosecution

ended without conviction. The decision resolves a circuit split over whether the plaintiff

must also show that his earlier prosecution ended with some affirmative showing of

innocence, such as an acquittal or a dismissal accompanied by a statement from the judge

that the evidence was insufficient to convict (Thompson v. Clark).

The Court also took action on an emergency application:



Environmental Law: By a 5-4 vote, the Court reinstated a 2020 Clean Water Act rule

promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency while litigation challenging that

rule continues. When a project requires federal approval under the Clean Water Act,

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

LSB10727

CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and

Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service

states and tribes must certify that the project will comply with applicable water quality

standards. The Trump Administration promulgated a rule that limited the grounds on

which states and tribes could review such projects. The Northern District of California

vacated the Trump Administration’s rule and reinstated the earlier certification process.

The effect of the Supreme Court’s order is to allow the rule to remain in effect while the

Ninth Circuit considers an appeal of the district court’s decision. The majority did not

issue an opinion explaining the reasons for its order (Louisiana v. American Rivers).

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.











Banking: A divided Tenth Circuit held that extended overdraft charges to a checking

account are considered “non-interest charges and fees” for “deposit account services”

governed by 12 C.F.R. § 7.4002 rather than “interest” charges governed by 12 C.F.R.

§ 7.4001. The distinction can lead to significant monetary differences because the

National Bank Act of 1864 sets interest-rate limits that may be lower than some banks’

charges for extended overdrafts; and the Act provides a cause of action for those charged

more than the Act’s interest-rate limit. Similar to other circuits’ approach, the majority

held that the governing regulations are ambiguous as to how to categorize extended

overdraft charges, but deferred to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s reasonable

interpretation of the regulations, which recognized that such charges are not “interest”

under 12 C.F.R. § 7.4001 (Walker v. BOKF, Nat’l Ass’n).

*Civil Rights: Adding to a circuit split, the Eleventh Circuit held that a public entity

cannot be held vicariously liable for money damages under Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act for the purposeful or deliberate conduct of its employees. The court

therefore upheld a district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s Title II claim against a

sheriff for his deputies’ conduct. The court did, however, allow the plaintiff’s civil rights

claims against the deputies in their individual capacities to proceed (Ingram v. Kubik).

Criminal Law & Procedure: The Fifth Circuit held that under the mental competency

provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4241, a criminal defendant who had initially been ordered by

the trial court to be committed for a period of evaluation and treatment, and was

thereafter certified by the hospital warden to be competent to stand trial, could be ordered

to undergo an additional period of commitment by the district court if the defendant again

became incompetent. The court construed Section 4241 as allowing up to two periods of

commitment for a criminal defendant, after which civil commitment proceedings would

need to be instituted to compel further treatment (United States v. Ceasar).

Criminal Law & Procedure: The Ninth Circuit held that in order for a criminal

defendant to be eligible for compassionate release from imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A), the defendant must have already begun his period of incarceration

(United States v. Fower).

Criminal Law & Procedure: A divided Tenth Circuit held, in a criminal prosecution

under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) and (k) for conspiring to tamper with a witness in a federal

proceeding, the government must show the defendant had contemplated the witness’s

participation in a proceeding that was reasonably likely to be federal (United States v.

Sutton).

2

Congressional Research Service











Environmental Law: On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit held that a

climate-change suit brought under Maryland state law by the Mayor and City Council of

Baltimore against multinational oil and gas companies should be heard in Maryland state

court. The court held that there was no basis under the applicable statutes for removal of

the suit to federal court (Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C.).

Environmental Law: A divided Ninth Circuit held that the Department of the Interior

(DOI) violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) when it concluded

that a proposed expansion of a Montana coal mining operation would not have a

significant environmental impact. The court held that DOI must consider the potential

climate-change effects of the coal combustion produced by the mine, although it rejected

plaintiffs’ more specific contention that DOI must do so using a particular estimate of the

“social cost of carbon.” The court did not vacate the DOI’s approval of the expanded

mining operation, but instead remanded the case to the district court for further factfinding, while allowing the mining operation to continue in the meantime (350 Montana

v. Haaland).

Immigration: The Second Circuit largely reversed a district court ruling that would have

required the release of records related to certain agencies’ interpretations and application

of federal immigration statutes that allow for the exclusion of aliens involved in terrorist

activity. The panel held that the requested portions of the State Department’s Foreign

Affairs Manual, along with questions used by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

to determine whether an applicant for admission falls under the terrorism-related grounds

for exclusion, were properly withheld under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

exemption for certain law enforcement records. The court remanded the case to the

district court to assess whether the plaintiff’s other record request, concerning an

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memorandum, had been rendered moot by

subsequent action taken by ICE in response to the district court order (Knight First

Amendment Institute v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services).

Labor & Employment: In construing the meaning of “employer” under the

Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), the Third Circuit joined every

other circuit to consider the issue, holding that the term has the same meaning as is used

in Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which the MPPAA amends.

Under that standard, an employer is an entity obligated to contribute to a pension plan

either as a direct employer or on behalf of one. In this case, because the plaintiff

contractor was considered an employer under MPPAA, the contractor would be

compelled to resolve a dispute about a pension plan withdrawal fee through arbitration,

rather than in federal court (J. Supor & Son Trucking & Rigging Co. v. Trucking

Employees of New Jersey Welfare Fund).

Labor & Employment: A divided Fifth Circuit vacated a district court’s preliminary

injunction halting implementation of an executive order generally requiring federal

employees to be vaccinated against the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The

majority concluded that the Civil Service Reform Act precluded the district court from

exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the legal challenge to the order (Feds for

Medical Freedom v. Biden).

3

Congressional Research Service







4

*Labor & Employment: Adding to a circuit split, the Eighth Circuit held that a plaintiff

undergoing a background check did not have standing to pursue claims against an

employer for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), when the employer did not

provide her with a copy of her consumer report or other required information before

taking adverse employment action based on the report. The Eighth Circuit held that these

procedural violations did not give rise to a harm sufficient to meet constitutional standing

requirements. Among other things, the panel concluded that (1) FCRA does not confer on

an applicant a right to explain negative but accurate information found in a consumer

report to a prospective employer; and (2) assuming plaintiff’s contention that the

background check went beyond the scope of the authorization she gave to conduct a

background check, the plaintiff still failed to plead a privacy injury from that search

sufficient to meet standing requirements (Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc.).

Tax: The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a Tax Court decision holding that

payments made to a Russian scientist working as a researcher at a Department of Energy

facility were exempt from U.S. taxation under the U.S.-Russia Tax Treaty. Under the

Treaty, “salaries, wages, and other similar remuneration” of covered nationals are taxable

by the other country for work performed there, while funds in the form of a “grant,

allowance, or other similar payments” are not. The panel held that these categories are

exclusive, and concluded that a key difference is that taxable work involves a substantial

quid pro quo element, while nontaxable grants generally do not. The panel remanded the

case to the Tax Court to assess the appropriate classification for the payments made to the

scientist (Baturin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia

Deputy Assistant Director/ALD

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.

LSB10727 · VERSION 1 · NEW