Seventh Circuit: Dawn Hanson v. Chris LeVan

Allegations of politically motivated dismissal state a claim where bias is credibly alleged, and according to statute and practice, the position involved access to neither policymaking deliberations nor the politically sensitive work of the elected official.

To state a claim of a clearly established right, there is an important distinction between a murky area of the law and a well-developed but complex area of the law -- the latter allows an easier inference at the pleading stage.

Dawn Hanson v. Chris LeVan

Seventh Circuuit: USA v. Robert Hosler

Sufficient evidence of enticement under the statute where statements seem to provoke the illegal conduct -- there is no requirement that the victim's will has to be overcome.

USA v.  Robert Hosler

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Elleck Christopher Vesey

Although the state offense serving as an ACCA predicate is divisible, either prong would require that the victim be close enough to have the prospect of imminent physical harm, making the state crime a valid predicate due to its elements.  General intent crimes can serve as predicate offenses.

USA v.  Elleck Christopher Vesey

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Raheim Trice

Deft's subjective expectation that the unlocked common hallway outside his apartment door was within the curtilage of his residence was objectively unreasonable, as deft had insufficient control over the space.

Placement of a hidden camera on the hallway wall opposite the deft's door did not violate the right to privacy, as it only recorded when the deft's door was opened, only short clips of video were filmed, and the deft would not have had the power to exclude law enforcement from being there and observing the same acts, even for extended periods.

United States v. Raheim Trice

Fifth Circuit: Kevin Santos-Alvarado v. William Barr, U. S. Atty

Petitioner's explanations of inconsistencies in testimony are reasonable, but they do not compel a finding that the Immigration judge's finding of adverse credibility was one that no reasonable jurist would make.

IJ's bar on telephonic testimony didn't violate due process, as the testimony wouldn't have been dispositive, and the IJ reviewed the witness' written statement.

Kevin Santos-Alvarado v. William Barr, U. S. Atty

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Herman Sanders, et al

Insufficient basis for Habeas on Ineffective Assistance, as the prejudice from the undiscovered evidence of trauma, illness, and coercion would not have caused a single reasonable juror to change their penalty phase vote, given past threats of violence, and incriminating letters offered at trial.

Dissent:  

Quoting state penalty phase closing:  “It’s an incredibly sad tribute that when a man’s life is on the line, about the only good thing we can say about him is he’s a good artist.” 

State waived AEDPA bar on new evidence in federal collateral challenge.

Precedent on reasonable probability isn't tied to the facts of each case -- they don't present a minimum threshold for the showing.

Substantial argument that deft killed only under threat of his own death.

USA v. Herman Sanders, et al

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Charles Davis

On  SCtUS  remand for plain error review -- although the deft didn't forfeit the challenge to the imposition of concurrent statutes, the acts were arguably dissimilar and irregular enough to avoid the statute's scope, and the temporal link is thin, ergo: no abuse of discretion in imposition or level of explanation of concurrent sentences.

USA v. Charles Davis

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Herman Sanders, et al

Rivals might have been appropriately joined, as they were involved in the same acts or transactions, but no actual prejudice, given curative instruction and the fact that the potentially prejudicial testimony was a small part of the total.

Required scienter encompasses all of the elements -- "knowingly" implies that the deft knew that the victims were minors.  Lack of proof of this at trial made for a constructive amendment to the indictment.

USA v. Herman Sanders, et al

Fourth Circuit: Darlene Gibbs v. Haynes Investments, LLC

Delegation clause in arbitration agreement can be judicially reviewed where the challenge is to that clause specifically, and the challenge is made with sufficient force and specificity.

Tribal arbitration agreement is a prospective waiver of federal statutory rights where it indicates that tribal law will preempt contrary federal law.

Tribal code with civil damages provision allowing compensation of actual harm doesn't sufficiently vindicate RICO treble damages right.

Darlene Gibbs v. Haynes Investments, LLC

Fourth Circuit: Eugene Baten v. Henry McMaster

Plaintiffs challenging state's allocation of Presidential Electors en bloc have Article III standing, as they allege sufficient injury and causation; although political gerrymandering is nonjusticeable, racial gerrymandering and vote dilution claims are substantially different.

No vote dilution, as the state is a unit, and each vote within it is equally counted; this structure is baked into the Constitution, and reflected in the tiebreaking procedure in the House, where each state gets a single vote.

Freedom of Association right derives from the right to associate with the party of one's choice, not from the party's chances, or the expectation that the national party will pay much attention to you.

VRA S2 and Gingles challenge falls short, since there is not prospect of a minority majority district, the poll is for electors, not the ultimate candidates, and minority voters have equal opportunity to select candidates of their choice.

Eugene Baten v. Henry McMaster 

Third Circuit: USA v. Eric Seighman

Supervised release mandatory sentencing statute does not violate the 6th Amendment trial right, since it includes non-criminal offenses, and the one-day mandatory minimum isn't significant enough to raise constitutional concerns, and if it were, there would be no plain error in this case, since the sentence was well in excess of the minimum.

Apprendi challenge along similar lines foreclosed by precedent.

USA v. Eric Seighman

First Circuit: TLS Mgmt. and Mktg. Ser. LLC v. Rodriguez-Toledo

A client file compiled by an asserted secret process containing asserted secret insights is not itself protected as a trade secret absent a division of public and nonpublic material within it and a specific claim for certain nonpublic material or processes.

A claim of trade secret for a business process must establish more than the fact that it is not known -- the claim must also establish that it is not ascertainable from public sources.

Nondisclosure agreements implicate the same public policy concerns of the forum state as do non-compete clauses.   Here, the agreements' broad scope, including general knowledge acquired on the job, particular knowledge acquired that was already public knowledge, and information provided by third parties, make the agreements unenforceable under the public policy exception.  Courts will not rewrite or narrow the contract, so the nondisclosure agreement is void in its entirety.

 TLS Mgmt. and Mktg. Ser. LLC v. Rodriguez-Toledo

Federal Circuit: Prestonback v. US

Military cadet's agreement to recoupment of educational costs upon voluntary early end of service is a statutory agreement, not a contract with the government.

Under Skidmore deference, the government can reasonably decide that involuntary separation from the military presumptively resulted from a voluntary refusal to achieve sufficient performance reviews.

Prestonback v. US

Tenth Circuit: Independent Producers Group v. CRB

Copyright Royalty Judges'  denial of claims as a discovery sanction wasn't a violation of constitutional due process -- as the tribunal is a largely clerical creature of statute, a different calculus applies to review of discovery sanctions than is applied in Article III courts.

Although the tribunal had earlier rejected the scheme that it eventually adopted, the new information provided in the interval constituted a quantum of persuasive evidence.

Independent Producers Group v. CRB 

Tenth Circuit: United States v. Moses

The fact that a surveillance camera was operating in front of the alleged "chop shop" mechanic might have proved exculpatory at trial, but there was no need to inform the magistrate issuing the search warrant of it, as the inference would have been permissive, and a Franks hearing would have resulted only if that inference had been made; the gun found on the proprietor during the search is therefore not excluded.

United States v. Moses

Tenth Circuit: Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board

(Per Curiam summary)

CJ, concurring: 

Insufficient 8A deliberate indifference claim where prison guards didn't have subjective knowledge of risk to detainee posed by leaving the cell door controls unlocked.

The situation doesn't correspond to a clearly established right -- negligence, perhaps.

Concur in part, concurring in the judgment:

Supervisor's knowledge of the risk can't be imputed to the guards.

Not a clearly established right, so no need to reach the deliberate indifference calculus, given qualified immunity.

Although there's no qualified immunity for Monell claims, the right has to be established in order to show the need to train employees.

Concurring in part, dissenting in part:

Claims against supervisor and municipality presented genuine issue for trial on deliberate indifference.

Central question on the deliberate indifference claim is whether it was reasonable to keep the controls unlocked.

Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board

Ninth Circuit: John Heineke v. Santa Clara University

Receipt of federal funds and consequent statutory nondiscrimination mandates does not make a private university into a state actor for purposes of S1983.

John Heineke v. Santa Clara University

Ninth Circuit: Shahriar Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Company

Where the class is in part defined by a claim arising under federal law, court does not abuse discretion by certifying the class prior to choice of law analysis, since, among other things, the underlying issues are identical,  and not every state claim will be raised in every action.

 Shahriar Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Company

Ninth Circuit: Yassir Fazaga v. FBI

Concurrence with denial of en banc (starting at 108):

Statutory FISA ex pare in camera review speaks squarely to and therefore displaces the state secrets privilege.

Dismissal remedy not identical with the privilege.

Privilege is an evidentiary privilege, not a constitutional one.

FISA remedy not limited to when the govt is on the offensive, and the other party need not be a defendant.

Dissent from denial of en banc:

FISA review limited to discrete instances of admissibility in criminal prosecutions

Displacement of state secrets privilege by statute privileges the legislature within the balance of powers.

An executive privilege can have a Constitutional core.

FISA review limited to "such other materials," not every possible material.

Any department can invoke privilege, but only DOJ can invoke FISA.

Govt invocation of privilege insufficient for statutory trigger of FISA.

Yassir Fazaga v. FBI

Ninth Circuit: Zayn Al-Abidin Husayn v. USA

Concurrence with denial of en banc:  When assessing State Secrets privilege, courts must attempt to determine if the contested materials contain privileged information, and if so, if there is any way to segregate the non-privileged information.

This applies when the basis for discovery is the statutory obligation to assist foreign tribunals.

Facts generally known and acknowledged by heads of government cannot be considered state secrets.

Dissent from denial of en banc:    Information requested has been held to be within the privilege.

Deference to the Executive warranted on national security interests.

Third party disclosure can't waive privilege, because it belongs to the govt.

Forcing govt to confirm or deny would be harmful.

State secrets privilege not diminished when discovery directed to government contractor.

Not incidental to foreign proceeding -- the purpose of the proceeding is to discover this information.

The fact that it is being sent to a foreign tribunal changes the state secrets balancing.

Zayn Al-Abidin Husayn v. USA