Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (November 20–November 26, 2023)

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent

Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers

(November 20–November 26, 2023)

November 27, 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 granted certiorari in three cases, two of which have been consolidated for

review:

•

•

Criminal Law & Procedure: The Court agreed to hear an appeal from the Seventh

Circuit on whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution require a jury trial

and proof beyond a reasonable doubt 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).

Indian Law: The Court agreed to hear two consolidated appeals from the Ninth and

Tenth Circuits to determine whether, under the Indian Self-Determination and Education

Assistance Act, the Indian Health Service (IHS) must pay contract support costs not only

for IHS-funded activities, but also to support a tribe’s expenditure of income collected

from third parties such as private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid (Becerra v. San

Carlos Apache Tribe; Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe).

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

LSB11081

CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and

Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service

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.

•

•

•

•

•

Criminal Law & Procedure: The Second Circuit held that a conviction for intentional

murder based on a Pinkerton theory of liability—under which a defendant may be

criminally liable for substantive offenses of co-conspirators in furtherance of the

conspiracy—is a categorical crime of violence. The court held that such a prior

conviction may support a subsequent conviction for use of a firearm while committing a

crime of violence or drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Gomez v. United

States).

Criminal Law & Procedure: A divided Eighth Circuit held that a categorical approach

applies to determine if a prior conviction is comparable to or more severe than aggravated

sexual abuse or sexual abuse for purposes of sentencing under the Sex Offender

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The majority reasoned that a categorical

approach to the tier analysis determination under 34 U.S.C. § 20911 requires only

consideration of the elements of the prior offense, thereby avoiding encroachment on a

defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights; respecting the benefits of any plea agreement or

bargain; and avoiding inefficiency, unfairness, or unreliability that may exist in the

factual review of prior offenses (United States v. Coulson).

Criminal Law & Procedure: The Third Circuit held that a conviction under 21 U.S.C.

§ 848(e)(1)(A) (intentional killing in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise) is

not a “covered offense” under the First Step Act and, therefore, sentences for such

convictions are not eligible for sentence reductions under the act (United States v. Junius;

United States v. Coach).

Election Law: A divided Eighth Circuit held that there is no private right of action for

plaintiffs to sue for alleged violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

Affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint, the majority reasoned that the text of

the VRA expressly assigns enforcement power to the U.S. Attorney General under 52

U.S.C. § 10308(d), and that neither the text nor structure of the VRA could support

recognition of an implied cause of action for private parties. The majority declined to

decide whether private parties could rely on other laws to enforce the VRA, including 42

U.S.C. § 1983, which permits private suits against state governments to enforce rights

secured by the Constitution or federal statute (Arkansas St. Conf. NAACP v. Arkansas Bd.

of Apportionment).

Election Law: The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court order that blocked the State

of Georgia from administering state-wide public commissioner elections in their current

form. The commissioners each represent one of five districts and are required to live in

the district they represent, but they are chosen by statewide elections and carry out

statewide authorities. The plaintiffs argued that the system impermissibly diluted the

power of Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the VRA, but the court held that the

plaintiffs had not offered a satisfactory remedial plan necessary to bring their claim, as

required by the Supreme Court’s three preconditions in Thornburg v. Gingles for

assessing at-large voting systems for vote dilution. The court characterized the public

commissioners as addressing statewide issues and observed that there was no allegation

that race was a motivating factor in the electoral format used to select them. The court

held that the plaintiffs’ proposed plan—changing Georgia’s statewide electoral system

2

Congressional Research Service

•

•

•

•

•

into a single-district system—was unreasonable, as it would require the court to direct

Georgia to replace a chosen system of government (i.e., statewide commissioners) with a

new system (Rose v. Secretary of State for the State of Georgia).

Employee Benefits: Assuming the viability of a claim for a violation of the Paul

Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008

(MHPAEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3), 1185a(a)(3)(A)(ii), the Tenth Circuit held that to

state a claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the relevant health plan is subject to the

MHPAEA; (2) a specific treatment limitation on mental health or substance-use disorder

benefits covered by the plan; (3) medical or surgical care covered by the plan that is

analogous to the mental health or substance-use disorder care for which the plaintiff seeks

benefits; and (4) a disparity between the treatment limitation on mental health or

substance-use disorder benefits as compared to the limitations the defendants apply to the

medical or surgical analog (E.W. v. Health Net Life Ins. Co.).

Environmental Law: The Fifth Circuit vacated the Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA’s) denial of a group of small refineries’ requested exemptions from the Renewable

Fuel Standard (RFS) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA allows small

refineries to request an exemption from the RFS’s annual obligations “for the reason of

disproportionate economic hardship.” The Fifth Circuit held that the EPA erred in reading

the statute to treat RFS compliance costs as the sole factor to be considered when

assessing “disproportionate economic hardship.” The court held that the CAA’s text

contemplates granting exemptions based on a combination of RFS compliance costs and

other economic factors The court also ruled that the EPA impermissibly applied a new

adjudicative methodology to the petitioners’ exemption request after the petitioners had

submitted their request in reliance on past agency practice (Calumet Shreveport Refin.,

L.L.C. v. EPA).

Environmental Law: The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that a riverbed

excavation project violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by adding riverbed materials to

the water that were not previously suspended in the water. The appellee claimed that its

river dredge mining activities—which involved sucking water, sediment, and minerals

from a river and discharging some of that material back into the river—did not require a

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit because the activities

did not add pollutants to the river. The court disagreed, finding that the process added

material to the water that was otherwise deposited in the riverbed and therefore came

under the CWA’s scope. Deferring to the EPA’s and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’

interpretation of the statute and implementing regulations, the court further held that the

processed material at issue was a pollutant, not dredged or fill material, thus requiring

acquisition of an NPDES permit before the discharge (Idaho Conservation League v.

Poe).

Firearms: A divided Fourth Circuit held that Maryland’s handgun-licensure law, which

requires prospective owners to first acquire a qualification license that may take up to 30

days to be approved, violated the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s Bruen

test. The majority decided that Maryland failed to identify a “historical analogue” for the

requirement. The majority reasoned that the law had the effect of prohibiting all people

from acquiring handguns until they had proved they were not dangerous, which imposed

a different burden than historical analogues identifying categories of dangerous

individuals to be disarmed (Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Moore).

Intellectual Property: The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s

failure to issue a final written decision in a post-grant review of a patent within the one-

3

Congressional Research Service

•

4

year deadline under 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(c) did not divest the

Board of jurisdiction over the proceeding. The court reasoned that, in the absence of any

contrary indication in the statute or legislative history, the Board retained authority to

issue a final written decision notwithstanding a missed statutory deadline (Purdue

Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharma., Inc.).

Torts: The Second Circuit held that the Federal Aviation Act (FAAct) did not preempt

state law tort claims arising from a fatal military helicopter crash because the FAAct

exempted military aircraft from its standards. The court nevertheless remanded the case

to the district court, explaining that a fact-intensive inquiry was required to determine if

the claims were barred by the military contractor defense (Jones v. Goodrich Pump &

Engine Control Sys., Inc.).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia

Deputy Assistant Director/ALD

Christina L. Shifton

Section Research Manager

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.

LSB11081 · VERSION 1 · NEW