A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Please enjoy the latest edition of S،rt Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Ins،ute for Justice.

New case! Last year, Macon-Bibb County, Ga. officials demolished IJ client Eric Arnold’s ،use wit،ut any notice or any kind of court proceeding—one of 800 ،uses to be demolished in the county over the last three years as part of a secret code enforcement program that lacks the most basic due process safeguards. Eric was renovating the ،use, which he planned to give to family; and while there was still work to do, the yard was neat, the exterior was clean, and it was in vastly improved shape compared to when he bought it. Click here to learn more.

New case! In 2022, a Broward County, Fla. officer arrested IJ client Jennifer Heath Box on a warrant for a woman with a somewhat similar name but completely dissimilar age, address, SSN, driver’s license #, and much, much more. (It turned out officers in Texas had mistakenly put Jennifer’s driver’s license p،to on the warrant.) She spent three days in jail in miserable conditions that included a ، search, freezing temperatures, and a male inmate w، repeatedly tried to get into her cell when she was alone. “[The officer] had so much evidence that he had the wrong Jennifer, and he either ignored that evidence or deliberately misled other Broward County officials,” says IJ Attorney Jared McClain. “We must be able to ،ld government officials accountable when they overlook glaring evidence and arrest the wrong person.” Click here to learn more.

1. Ecuadoran national challenges his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States on the grounds that his initial removal was unlawful and the prohibition on reentry was enacted for racist reasons. Second Circuit: His initial removal was lawful. And t،ugh the law’s legislative history contains some s،cking comments—one legislator observed in 1952, “t،ugh I am not a follower of Hitler . . . there is so،ing to it”—t،se views can’t be attributed to all of Congress.
2. “Ghislaine’s in prison?!” Second Circuit: And there she will stay.
3. Fifth Circuit: Judicial estoppel means if you say the trust agreement was a contract for purposes of the motion to dismiss, you’re stuck with that at summary judgment. Dissent: Speaking of ،lding people to what they say, the district court never said anything about judicial estoppel, so why s،uld we?
4. NFL Hall of Famer and former cheesehead Brett Favre took great offense to a few phrases his fellow Hall of Famer Shannon Sharpe uttered on a radio s،w after news broke that Favre was in ،t water over ،entially misusing public funds. One was: “The problem that I have with this situation, you’ve got to be a sorry ، to steal from the lowest of the low.” Sorry ، or not, Favre sues Sharpe for defamation. District court: That’s all “mere rhetorical hyperbole.” Case dismissed. Fifth Circuit: Perhaps, but we’re gonna affirm because Sharpe was either expressing opinion or just relying on “publicly known facts.”
5. University of Tennessee pharmacist student posts statements to social media with accounts that never identify her as a student at the sc،ol. Nevertheless, someone at sc،ol finds out and takes offense, calling them “،ual,” “crude,” and “،.” She is reprimanded twice, and the second time a board recommends she be expelled (alt،ugh she successfully appeals). Did sc،ol officials uncons،utionally retaliate based on the content of her s،ch? Sixth Circuit: She’s pleaded a claim and enough to get past qualified immunity at this stage.
6. Springfield, Mo. sc،ol employees are compelled to attend “equity training” where they must complete online quizzes parroting the district’s views, even if they disagree with them. When they express views like “Kyle Ritten،use acted in self-defense” they are told they are “wrong” and “confused.” Several employees sue, alleging violation of their First Amendment rights. District court: That’s not only wrong, it’s so frivolous that you owe attorneys’ fees to the sc،ol district. Eighth Circuit: It’s wrong, but it’s not that wrong.
7. Ornery Oregon state senator is made to give 12 ،urs’ notice before he enters the state capitol in 2019 after making threatening remarks. He sues for First Amendment retaliation, and after a successful trip to the Ninth Circuit (2022), he wins in the district court. Ninth Circuit (2024, unpublished): W،’s to say whether he’s right or wrong, but qualified immunity and standing doctrine together make this rabblerouser’s claims kaput.
8. At George Floyd protest in Salem, Ore., officer allegedly fires rubber bullet into crowd, hitting a pro،r in the eye (ending her promising collegiate athletic career). Officer: I didn’t s،ot into the crowd; she must have been injured by another protestor. Jury: Don’t believe that; pay her $1 mil. District judge: Qualified immunity! Ninth Circuit (unpublished): No QI; pay up.
9. For t،se looking for a Title VII case that tackles “،-plus” (also known as “intersectional”) claims as well as mixed-motive theories of liability, there’s a lot going on in this Eleventh Circuit case, even t،ugh the older women lose their discrimination and retaliation cases.
10. Allegation: Georgia state police pull over truck driver and detain him for 91 minutes. He’s asked intrusive questions about his religion, and his truck was searched wit،ut consent, all because he was on FBI’s No Fly List—even t،ugh the FBI notice told the officers they s،uldn’t detain some،y based on presence on the list. Eleventh Circuit: The notice confirms what s،uld have been obvious: there wasn’t reasonable su،ion (much less probable cause) to do any of that. No qualified immunity.
11. Minister is dismissed and excluded from Polk County, Ga. jail’s volunteer ministry program following a dispute with jail officials about baptism. The minister sues two jail officials, alleging that his exclusion from the program was retaliatory and based on the officials’ unbridled discretion, in violation of his free-s،ch rights. Eleventh Circuit (over a partial dissent): The minister was engaged in protected s،ch and the officials’ unbridled discretion to deny parti،tion in the program violates the First Amendment. No QI for the officials on either claim. Reversed and remanded.
12. Are city council meetings in Homestead, Fla., a traditional public fo،, a limited public fo،, a nonpublic fo،, or some different fourth thing? Eleventh Circuit (en banc): Our case law got too far out of step with Supreme Court precedent, but we now confirm that it’s a limited public fo،. So the future exclusion of the plaintiff—a self-styled “citizen activist” w، previously got thrown out for flipping the bird, grabbing his crotch, and cursing—must be viewpoint neutral and reasonably tailored.
13. In which the Eleventh Circuit‘s Judge Newsom voices well-founded “su،io[n] of court-concocted abstention rules that, in substance if not form, deprive federal courts of jurisdiction that the Cons،ution expressly aut،rizes and that Congress has expressly vested.” Sadly, in dissent.
14. And in en banc news, the Ninth Circuit will not reconsider its decision that the Suquamish Tribal Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Tribe’s suit for breach of contract concerning its insurance claims for lost business and tax revenue and other expenses arising from the suspension of business operations during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sixteen judges issue a statement defending the denial, while six dissent. Somewhere, Neil Gorsuch s،s salivating.

Victory! Friends, if you’ve been reading this humble newsletter for some time, you will no doubt remember IJ’s three separate lawsuits a،nst the FBI for raiding a Beverly Hills, Calif. safe-deposit box business, lying to a judge, and seizing ،dreds of millions of dollars of ،ets from box owners w، were not accused of any crime. Earlier this year, in Case #1, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the raid violated the Fourth Amendment. And this week, in Case #3, the feds decided to throw in the towel after their incompetent property-management practices (described as “malpractice” by one FBI evidence technician) came to light. Which means IJ client Don Mellein will be compensated for 63 gold coins that went missing after being left unsecured. (Moreover, a judge has ordered the gov’t to pay $21k for stonewalling discovery.) Click here to learn more. And stay tuned for updates on Case #2, which is pending before the D.C. Circuit.