First Circuit: Ass'n Hosp. del Maestro, Inc. v. Becerra

 

Agencies can exercise discretion only in places of ambiguity or silence; they are unable to amend a clear statutory mandate that seems at odds with the purposes of the legislation. Agency did not err, and the rulemaking did not run afoul of the APA.

Agency's implementation according to statute did not offend Equal Protection; proof of discriminatory of intent would also be needed.

Mandate requiring extension of policy in the same manner and to the extent that it applies to existing facilities mans that the same methodology should be implemented to the same extent, not that the facilities should be funded to the same extent.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-1475P-01A.pdf

Fifth Circuit: United Steel, Paper and Forest v. Anderson

 

As none of the comparators had records as bad as that of the plaintiff, and all of the other plaintiffs derived their interest from the plaintiff's claim, the issue of pretextual justification doesn't present a question for trial.

Equal Protection claim on behalf of the association to which plaintiff belonged is precluded by Supreme Court precedent as a class-of-one claim given the context of discretionary public employment.

Mere assertion that state officers granted immunity by the district court were acting outside the scope of their duties and not in good faith constitutes a forfeiture of the issue on appeal due to lack of argument.

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-50501-CV0.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Brian Hope v. Commissioner

 

Unequal treatment of a state's residents under the 14th Amendment right to domestic travel only occurs when a law expressly differentiates between residents based on their length or timing of residency.

Absent a violation of the right to travel, the equal protection claim should be assessed under rational basis review.

State's offender registration law is insufficiently punitive to base an ex post facto claim upon it; the stated purpose of the legislature was civil and regulatory.  In practice, it's sufficiently different from parole, as the status can't be revoked; its restraints and disabilities aren't sufficiently severe to make the law punitive;  residency restrictions do not serve punitive aims, and there is sufficient connection to nonpunitive purposes; and the law is not excessive in relation to its aims.

CONCURRENCE:

The registration law is permissibly retroactive; it imposes obligations beyond those prescribed at the time of the offense.

CONCURRENCE/DISSENT:

Requiring registration of residents who are subject to registration in their prior state of residence puts those residents on unequal terms with residents of their present state who are shielded from registration requirments by a decision of the state's supreme court holding the registration requirment to be sufficiently punitive to trigger ex post facto scrutiny.

A resident of the instant state who then travelled to another state where they were subject to registration requirements would then have to register in the instant state upon their return, burdening the travel right.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D08-16/C:19-2523:J:St__Eve:aut:T:fnOp:N:2748072:S:0

Fifth Circuit: Anokwuru v. City of Houston

 

S1983 False arrest claim was immunized by an intervening indictment from the grand jury and the lack of a specific claim that the officers involved had deliberately or recklessly provided false information to the magistrate or the grand jury.

Circuit precedent does not recognize a freestanding malicious prosecution complaint under S1983.

Equal protection claim dismissed for lack of comparators or discriminatory intent.

A claim against the municipality for inadequate training that relies on a single incident must demonstrate the complete lack of training.

No abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend the fourth amended complaint.

Sua sponte dismissal of claims upheld, since magistrate had recommended it and plaintiff briefed the issue -- so long as the plaintiff has a fair opportunity to plead their best case.

Anokwuru v. City of Houston

Eleventh Circuit: Michelle Lee Helm v. Greg Carroll, et al

 

In considering whether a reasonable person would have thought that they could have walked away from an allegedly consensual encounter with the police, the race of the suspect is not a relevant factor.  This consideration would be insufficiently universal to be objective, and offends Equal protection.

Concurrence in J:

Ideally, the law would be that the police must affirmatively clarify whether a suspect is free to leave an allegedly consensual but inherently coercive encounter.  Offends Equal Protection.

Michelle Lee Helm v. Greg Carroll, et al

Second Circuit: Reynolds v. Quiros, et al.

 

Actual conditions of prisoner's solitary confinement present a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

State statute imposing conditions for the incarceration of prisoners whose death sentences have been commuted, passed after the legislative elimination of the death penalty and prior to the judicial determination that those already sentenced to death should have their sentences commuted, was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, imposing specific punishments on implicitly designated specific persons without the benefit of trial.

Classification of prisoner as a higher security threat than others similarly situated had no rational basis, and violated Equal Protection.

Concurrence:

Eighth Amendment claims of mistreatment of prisoners require an element of subjective intent.

Reynolds v. Quiros, et al.

Eighth Circuit: B.W.C. v. Randall Williams

 

Recital of state's advocacy for vaccination on form required to be signed by those refusing to have their children vaccinated doesn't amount to compelled speech or place any incidental burden on speech.

The requirement to sign the form is a neutral requirement of general applicability that does not cause an increase in the perceived harm of vaccination.

No equal protection claim, as the requirement to sign the form is a general one.

As each individual aspect of the claim is without basis, the hybrid nature of the claim doesn't justify strict scrutiny.

B.W.C.  v.  Randall Williams

Fifth Circuit: Veritext Corporation v. Paul Bonin, et al

State regulation of business practices of shorthand court reporters is justified by a sufficiently strong state interest.

The practice is not immunized against antitrust scrutiny, though, as there is no active state oversight; while the regulations are a creation of the legislature, and the Board is merely administering them.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30691-CV0.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Thaddeus Jones v. Michelle Qualkinbush

The right to vote on policy questions in a referendum is a creature of state, not federal, law, and the referendum process is not a public forum under the First Amendment, so a state entity might legitimately dominate the process if there is a reasonable basis for it to do so.

A politician disadvantaged by the state's manipulation of the referendum process is a class of one for Equal Protection purposes, and where the conduct is valid as a general matter, the question is not justiciable.  (This last bit is clearly implied, but not explicitly stated in those terms.)

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-14/C:17-1227:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:2170958:S:0

Second Circuit: Seepersad v. Sessions

No equal protection violation in permitting aliens seeking readmission at the border to waive inadmissibility while requiring a showing of valid residency before granting a similar waiver to resident aliens, as Congress might have wished to encourage doubtful aliens to be elsewhere during the process.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1a213a40-982b-4547-95ac-62b636db872e/1/doc/16-64_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1a213a40-982b-4547-95ac-62b636db872e/1/hilite/

Fourth Circuit: Raleigh Wake Citizens Assoc v. Wake County Board of Election

Elections, OPOV

Where the redistricting population variation is less than 10%, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that improper considerations predominate in the explanation.

Error to exclude expert statistical testimony.  Although it is not compelled by precedent, it would serve to identify possible explanations for the mapping.

Plan violated state & federal OPOV given lack of testimony from legislatures, pretextual justifications for the shifts, and demonstration that traditional redistricting practices were not followed.

No abuse of discretion in trial court's holding that references to race in the legislative record did not establish improper racial motive.

Dissent -- if abusive partisanship is justicable, it has to be specifically proven, not suggested by statistics.


Raleigh Wake Citizens Assoc v. Wake County Board of Election

Fifth Circuit: Keith Harris v. Texas Veterans Commission, et al

Equal Protection, Right to Travel

State statute offering tuition benefits for past military service so long as the student enlisted or was inducted while in the state or a resident in the state has a rational basis, as it encourages positive behavior (enlisting, graduating high school) and keeps other residents of the state from being conscripted.

Right to travel is not implicated, as it imposes no penalty on entrants to the state.  Had it been implicated, portability of of benefit and gratuitous nature of entitlement would suffice for review.

Keith Harris v. Texas Veterans Commission, et al