DC Circuit: American Hospital Association v. Alex Azar, II

Jurisdiction-strip statute circumscribed by ultra vires agency actions -- if actions were in excess of the statutory authority - even if not plainly and clearly so -  the jurisdiction strip doesn't apply.

Where the jurisdiction strip merges with merits, deference still applies, since otherwise there would be a wider scope of review, contrary to law's intent.

Implementation provisions referencing statute that the agency is interpreting doesn't preclude implementation rulemaking as to the latter, since the latter recites other implementation mechanisms.

Agency reading is reasonable, given text and statutory context, so jurisdiction strip applies.

Arguendo, even without a basis for Article III jurisdiction, under statutory jurisdiction, the rulemaking doesn't conflict with a law regulating such reimbursements.

American Hospital Association v. Alex Azar, II

DC Circuit: Association for Community v. TREA

Inclusion of disputed term in a subsequent statute regulating the matter did not constitute an implied repeal of the earlier statute's definition.

Ability to renew a plan of limited duration doesn't make agency designation of "short-term" unreasonable.

Agency rule reasonably balances conflicting policy agendas.

Dissent: Rule doesn't sufficiently reconcile statutory scheme as a whole.

Association for Community v. TREA

DC Circuit: Grace v. William Barr

District court had sufficient statutory jurisdiction to review policy document addressing substantive law invoked by the procedural law subject to judicial review; challenge in individual cases would prove impractical.

Policy change announced in agency adjudication not insulated from review by the bar on review of individual cases; separate jurisdiction strip statute evaded in this case, as the policy affects both the matter covered by the jurisdiction strip and other matters.

Administrative standard adopted under Chevron logic is arbitrary and capricious, as it is inherently bifurcated, and could result in different outcomes in identical situations based on which standard was used.

New choice of law policy arbitrary and capricious, not sufficiently distinguished as a change from prior practice, and the justifications advanced are not in the rulemaking itself.

Policy guidance appropriately states the rule on circularity of harm developed in agency adjudications.

Language in guidance document suggesting prospective application appropriately qualified by statements of generality, and therefore not a new rule.

Jurisdiction strip referred to the operation of the statute, not rulemaking found to be inconsistent with the statute.  (Perhaps.  This is quick work.  Don't ever rely.)

Dissent:

Jurisdiction strip statutes apply, allowing review of law and application of law to fact would undercut the purposes of the bars to review.  

Grace v. William Barr 

DC Circuit: Imapizza, LLC v. At Pizza Limited

Conditional request for leave to amend in memorandum in opposition didn't satisfy local rules for motion for leave to amend.

Downloading images from plaintiff's US website is not sufficient for domestic copyright infringement, as fixation happens when the image is reproduced for the foreign viewer.

Taking photographs of US restaurants in support of a scheme of actual copying abroad doesn't infringe, as the act of taking photos of these buildings didn't infringe.

Generally, the predicate act test requires an act of domestic infringement.

Tourist confusion as harm would impermissibly broaden the effects-based extraterritorial scope of the Lanham Act.

Visit for the purpose of infringement was not Trespass.

No abuse of discretion in denial of surreply, as party had two opportunities to weigh in on the issue.

Imapizza, LLC v. At Pizza Limited

Ninth Circuit: Daniel Farrell v. Boeing Employees Credit Union

As the Federal Government's waiver of sovereign immunity makes it subject to process in each state, a creditor seeking garnishment against a party in another state can seek to enforce its judgment in the forum state of the judgment.

Daniel Farrell v. Boeing Employees Credit Union

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Gabriel Sherrod

No clear error in court's holding that police officer's post-incident statement that he kept the door from closing, later described as a poor choice of words, really meant that he had walked in through an open door.

Knock and announce not required where a minor child resident being followed by the police walks into the house without closing the door, it's nighttime, and police have a felony arrest warrant for a resident whom they believe to be inside.

Obstruction sentencing bump is not an abuse of discretion where deft testifies that the police kicked the door, but the court can't discern it in the audio.

Below-guidelines statutory maximum sentence not substantively unreasonable.

United States  v.  Gabriel Sherrod

Seventh Circuit: Adetokunbo Fayemi v. Kess Roberson

Easterbrook on Agatha Christie.

Court's proababilistic summary of the Strickland standard did not evince a logic contrary to the rule, so long as the final logic accords.  Given overwhelming evidence, not a misapplication of the law to say that assertion in opening statement that an ultimately non-testifying deft would testify wasn't sufficiently ineffective.

Adetokunbo Fayemi v. Kess Roberson

Sixth Circuit: Scott Callahan v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

Given precedent and legislative activity in the area, there is no Bivvens cause of action under the First Amendment for the seizure of an inmate's painting and mailed model photographs; the prison grievance procedures presumably offer sufficient remedy.

Scott Callahan v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

Fifth Circuit: David Wilson v. Houston Community College System

Dissent from Denial of En Banc: Legislative censure by Board was appropriate government speech; ruling to the contrary upholding Free Speech right of the member censured risks weaponizing gadflies.

David Wilson v. Houston Community College System

Fifth Circuit: Vantage Deepwater Company, et al v. Petrobras Amer

Court appropriately deferred to arbitrators' decision, since public policy does not bar arbitration agreements resolving questions about contracts achieved through dubious means -- the question on the public policy exception is whether the ratification would create a danger to the public.

Court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery during arbitration vacatur proceedings seeking testimony of arbitrator, since arbitration association rules prohibiting it are incorporated, and the arbitration record is equivocal.

No abuse of discretion in denying subpoena for arbitration association, given vague boundaries of immunity, and necessity to move things along.

As arbitration agreement discussed the equities of the parties in full, it was not sufficiently contrary to the agreement's choice of law and corporate form and surety provisions. 

Vantage Deepwater Company, et al v. Petrobras Amer

Fifth Circuit: In re: Taxotere Prod Liability

Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims of a MDL plaintiff, as there is sufficient indication in the record that the plaintiff had engaged in delay or contumacious conduct, and that no lesser sanctions would serve the interests of justice.

In re: Taxotere Prod Liability

Fifth Circuit: Will McRaney v. N Amer Mission Bd So Baptist

Dismissal of a civil tort claim under the Religious Matters abstention doctrine is inappropriate absent sufficient indication that the resolution of the question will force the court to interfere with religious government or matters of faith or doctrine.

Will McRaney v. N Amer Mission Bd So Baptist

Third Circuit: Teamsters Local 177 v. United Parcel Service

Where a party to a statutory arbitration agreement involving prospective equitable relief in which both parties have consented to judicial entry of the award seeks a summary proceeding in federal courts for entry of the award, there is sufficient a case or controversy for constitutional purposes.

Teamsters Local 177 v. United Parcel Service

Second Circuit: United States v. Traficante

Above-guidelines sentence was sufficiently explained to be procedurally reasonable as either a variance or a departure; substantively reasonable, given similar precedent and previous bad acts.\\

As the judicial order that modifies a certain sentencing condition interposes a finding by a District Court, challenge to the order is reserved for that step, and is not ripe until then.

United States v. Traficante

Second Circuit: Keefe v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Petitioner's omission of necessary regulatory permissions and merely casual conversations about the prospect of rental sufficed to establish that the property wasn't regularly and continuously used in that manner.

Late tax filings in previous years are appropriately penalized given the present loss of the deduction.

Materially distinguishable precedent cannot be used to establish sufficient substantial authority to justify the earlier tax position.

Keefe v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

First Circuit: US v. Capelton

As the subsequent caselaw discussed the willingness to assist if necessary in terms of the intent that the crime be committed, there was not a realistic probability that courts would convict under the statute without intent as an element -- the offense is therefore categorically a predicate offense under the sentencing law.

US v. Capelton