Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (Feb. 6–Feb. 12, 2023)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent

Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers

(Feb. 6–Feb. 12, 2023)

February 14, 2023

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 did not issue any opinions or agree to hear any new cases.

Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Topic headings marked with an asterisk (*) indicate cases in which 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: A divided Third Circuit reversed in part a district court’s order dismissing

claims brought by plaintiffs incarcerated for failing to pay child support who alleged that

authorities had coerced them into providing dangerous labor during their detention. The

plaintiffs alleged that county authorities conditioned their access to paid work release

programs necessary to satisfy their civil contempt orders on first working at a privately

owned recycling center for minimal pay. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiffs

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

LSB10918

CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and

Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service









adequately pled claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Fair Labor

Standards Act, and Pennsylvania law against the county, local waste authority, and

recycling center for abusing the work release program and violating the state and federal

minimum wage, as well as a claim against the recycling center under the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Burrell v. Staff).

Criminal Law & Procedure: The Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s order

dismissing criminal charges against defendants accused of facilitating a bribery scheme

between U.S.-based businesses and Venezuelan officials. The Fifth Circuit held that the

indictments sufficiently alleged that the defendants were “agents” of a domestic concern

within the meaning of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and that the term “agent” is not

unconstitutionally vague. The Fifth Circuit also held that money laundering charges may

be brought under the extraterritoriality provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(f) based on conduct

that “occurs in part in the United States,” even when the defendant is not physically

present in the United States. The Fifth Circuit further concluded that the district court

erred by refusing to toll a statute of limitations to account for obtaining foreign evidence

under 18 U.S.C. § 3292 and by granting one defendant’s motion to suppress certain

evidence (United States v. Rafoi).

Criminal Law & Procedure: The Eleventh Circuit held that Florida’s registration and

reporting requirements for sex offenders do not render those offenders “in custody” under

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), a prerequisite for seeking post-conviction relief under that federal

habeas corpus statute. The court reasoned that Florida’s requirements, while demanding,

did not substantially limit the petitioner’s actions or movements. For procedural reasons,

the court did not consider separate state and local residency restrictions on sex offenders

(Clements v. Florida).

Election Law: A divided Eighth Circuit held that the Federal Election Campaign Act

(FECA) did not preempt a civil investigative demand from the Minnesota Attorney

General to political action committee WinRed Inc. regarding allegations that WinRed

made misleading solicitations for donations to federal candidates during the 2020 election

cycle. The Minnesota Attorney General alleged that WinRed violated Minnesota’s

consumer protection law, but WinRed argued that 52 U.S.C. § 30143 of FECA, which

supersedes state law “with respect to election to Federal office,” preempted Minnesota’s

investigation. The Eighth Circuit held that FECA did not expressly preempt the

underlying state law and explained that, under a Federal Election Commission regulation,

Minnesota’s law fit into a category of statutes not superseded by FECA for “false

registration, voting fraud, theft of ballots, and similar offenses.” The court also held that

implied preemption did not apply, concluding that FECA’s silence did not mean that

Congress intended to preempt all federal-election-related consumer protections (WinRed,

Inc. v. Ellison).

Energy: The Tenth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over New Mexico’s challenge

to an agency decision regarding spent nuclear fuel because the state was not a party to the

relevant administrative proceedings. New Mexico sought to challenge the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s grant of a temporary license to a private company to store

spent nuclear fuel near the state’s border. The state argued that the court had jurisdiction

under the combination of the Hobbs Act and Atomic Energy Act and, separately, under

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The court held that New Mexico merely submitted a

comment to the Commission regarding the license and so was not an “aggrieved party”

sufficient to trigger jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act and Atomic Energy Act. The court

further held that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act did not trigger jurisdiction because the Act

did not cover the temporary license at issue and, alternatively, because New Mexico

2

Congressional Research Service











failed to utilize other available remedies (New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. U.S. Nuclear

Regul. Comm’n).

Environmental Law: The Sixth Circuit granted a petition challenging the Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2020 removal of an air nuisance rule (ANR) from Ohio’s

State Implementation Plan for national ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air

Act. The court rejected the EPA’s argument that the petitioners lacked standing to

challenge the removal. On the merits, the EPA requested remand to the agency without

vacatur. Intervenor Ohio opposed remand, and the petitioners sought remand with vacatur

and additional conditions. The court granted the EPA’s request and remanded without

vacating EPA’s removal of the ANR (Sierra Club v. EPA).

Environmental Law: The Federal Circuit held that 2007 amendments to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not create compensable property

rights in fishing permits or licenses that could support a Fifth Amendment takings claim.

The plaintiffs sought compensation for limits placed on their harvesting and processing of

fish by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 and argued that the 2007 amendments

overrode earlier court decisions holding that the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not create

compensable property interests. The Federal Circuit disagreed and held that the Act

neither explicitly nor implicitly created such rights in permits or licenses. The court also

held that the plaintiffs lacked any other compensable property interest in using their

fishing vessels to harvest and process fish in the areas restricted by the 2018 Act

(Fisherman’s Finest, Inc. v. United States).

Federal Courts: The Eleventh Circuit joined a consensus among other circuits and held

that 28 U.S.C. § 1961 provides a default rule for post-judgment interest in federal cases

but does not prevent parties from contracting around that rule via clear, unambiguous,

and unequivocal language. The Eleventh Circuit determined that the parties had not

entered such an agreement and affirmed the district court’s judgment concerning that and

all other issues in the case (Walker v. Life Ins. Co. of N.Am.).

Immigration: The Sixth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review an appeal denying

a cancellation of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), because the appeal

fell under the safe harbor provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Appellate courts have

limited jurisdiction over immigration courts’ decisions regarding alien eligibility for relief

from removal, and the appellate courts are typically barred from reviewing factual

findings underlying BIA decisions. The Sixth Circuit nevertheless determined that it had

jurisdiction over the appeal and could review the underlying facts related to whether the

petitioner, who was unlawfully present in the United States, satisfied the “good moral

character” eligibility requirement for cancellation of removal. Adopting reasoning

previously employed by the Eighth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit held that the statute’s safe

harbor provision allows a federal appeals court to review questions of law, including

mixed questions of law and fact, and that appeals requesting review of cancellations of

removal fall into this category (Jorge Hernandez v. Merrick Garland).

Immigration: The Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear en banc a challenge to the Department

of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) attempt to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

designations for Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador. Certain aliens within the

United States who might otherwise be subject to removal may remain in the country if

DHS has designated those countries for TPS because of unstable or dangerous conditions

within those countries. DHS announced it would end TPS designations for Sudan,

Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador in 2017 and 2018, but plaintiffs challenged the orders

on constitutional equal protection grounds and under the Administrative Procedure Act,

3

Congressional Research Service







4

and a district court issued a preliminary injunction barring implementation of the TPS

termination orders while litigation continued. In 2020, a divided three-judge Ninth

Circuit panel reversed and vacated the preliminary injunction, and remanded the case to

the lower court for further proceedings. However, the panel did not issue a directive to

the district court to make the ruling effective, and the injunction has remained in place.

Without addressing the underlying merits of the earlier panel decision, the en banc Ninth

Circuit vacated the panel’s ruling and agreed to rehear the case (Ramos v. Wolf).

Intellectual Property: The Federal Circuit affirmed the Director of the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office’s (Director’s) denial of rehearing in two proceedings before the Patent

Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In 2021, the Supreme Court held in United States v.

Arthrex, Inc. that the Constitution’s Appointments Clause requires the Director to review

the PTAB’s final patentability decisions. The Federal Circuit rejected the appellant’s

argument that the Director’s review must occur within the statutory deadlines applicable

to PTAB decisions. The Federal Circuit also held that the Director’s delegation to the

PTAB of statutory authority to extend a deadline when cases are joined did not violate the

Appointments Clause (CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC).

International Trade: The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of

International Trade and upheld Presidential Proclamation 9980, which raised tariffs on

imports of steel derivative products (e.g., steel nails, tacks, and stranded wire) from

certain countries. Then-President Trump proclaimed the tariff increases after the

Secretary of Commerce reported a threat to national security under Section 232 of the

Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 empowers and directs the President to act to

alleviate threats to national security from products imported into the United States. The

Secretary found that steel imports were a threat to national security based on their

contribution to unsustainably low levels of domestic steel production. The Federal Circuit

concluded that steel derivatives were within Section 232’s authorization of presidential

action based on the Secretary’s finding about steel imports (PrimeSource Building

Products, Inc. v. United States).

Labor & Employment: The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court order granting

summary to judgment to Amtrak against a former employee’s racial discrimination claim,

but rejected Amtrak’s argument that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) precluded the claim.

Amtrak contended that the plaintiff’s suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 depended on the

interpretation and application of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and so was

subject to mandatory arbitration under the RLA. The Fourth Circuit held that the

plaintiff’s claim did not depend on a right arising from the CBA or require interpretation

of the CBA, but affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling in Amtrak’s favor

on the substance of the claim (Giles v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.).

Author Information

Hannah-Alise Rogers

Legislative Attorney

Alexander H. Pepper

Legislative Attorney

Congressional Research Service

5

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.

LSB10918 · VERSION 1 · NEW