Strolling through Boston Common, flying over Greenland, and driving in Independence.

John Ross · May 28, 2021
  • Allegations: Man is strolling through Boston Common when the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts (a historic military organization) fires blank rounds from howitzers, damaging the man’s hearing. Man sues the United States. (The Massachusetts Army National Guard oversaw the cannon exercise.) District court: The man’s claim arises out of the National Guard’s performance of a “discretionary function,” so the courts lack jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. First Circuit: Just so.
  • In 1968, a B-52 carrying four hydrogen bombs crashed in the Wolstenholme Fjord in Greenland, 7 miles west of Thule Air Base and 700 miles north of the Arctic Circle. The crash released radioactive materials, including plutonium, and the Air Force carried out a nine-month cleanup effort staffed by American military personnel and Danish civilians. In 2010, several of the Danish workers who fell ill after their work filed claims under the Defense Base Act, arguing that the Air Force didn’t do enough to protect them from radiation. First Circuit: The workers lose the battle of experts as to whether plutonium radiation caused their illnesses.
  • As Harvey Weinstein’s empire crumbled, his company declared bankruptcy and sold most of its assets to Spyglass. What does that mean for those who had contracted with Weinstein? In a pair of cases, the Third Circuit brings bad news for Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro (plus some less-recognizable faces): Spyglass did not assume the obligations to a group of investors who had provided funding in exchange for a share of future profits, nor must the company pay $400k to the producer of Silver Linings Playbook owed before the sale’s closing.
  • An employee with the York County, S.C. Sheriff’s Office discloses to his wife (who works in local news) confidential information about an investigation into an inmate’s death. Then he lies to internal investigators. The sheriff fires the employee, after which the employee sues the sheriff for First Amendment retaliation. District court (2017): The employee’s speech was protected under the First Amendment. Fourth Circuit (2019): The lower court used the wrong standard. Vacated and remanded. District court (2019): The employee’s speech was not protected under the First Amendment. Fourth Circuit (2021): Affirmed! Dissent: The employee was concerned about police misconduct, and the sheriff’s office had publicly denied wrongdoing. I would hold that the employee’s interest in warning of potential misconduct and corruption trumps the government’s interest in efficiency.
  • In which the Fifth Circuit confronts whether a man’s receipt of a single text-message in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is an “injury in fact” supporting Article III standing. Fifth Circuit: Good enough for Article III. (The Eleventh Circuit, in 2019, thought differently.)
  • Move over, “not clearly established.” In the Fifth Circuit, “new Bivens context” is the latest way to deny remedies for violations of constitutional rights. Meaning even if his food really was contaminated with feces and urine, a federal prisoner is still SOL.
  • The Sixth Circuit gently reminds the bar that waiver and forfeiture are not the same, and the little difference can mean years of prison time.
  • Congress recently allocated $29 bil to help small restaurants hurt by the pandemic. Women, veterans and the “socially and economically disadvantaged” (essentially meaning racial minorities) get to apply earlier than others, giving them a better chance of scoring limited funds. Husband (white) and wife (a woman, obviously, and Hispanic) own restaurant 50-50. Thus business is 1% away from being able to apply early. Is this an unconstitutional race or sex preference? Sixth Circuit says yes. For race, some groups are in or out for no seeming reason with no evidence presented (e.g., Pakistanis are in, Afghans are not). For sex, the government only provides sparce statistics. The dissent, on the other hand, says the program is “a carefully targeted measure necessitated by an unparalleled pandemic.”
  • After spending more than a decade in prison, Indiana man is granted habeas relief because prosecutors illegally added charges that more than doubled his sentence. He sues the prosecutors. Seventh Circuit: Absolute prosecutorial immunity.
  • Shannon Hills, Ark. police officer is dispatched to the scene of a domestic dispute, where he alleges he heard blood-curdling screams (the people involved deny this). After he kicks the door, a man opens the door and charges at him with hands raised (ditto). The officer yells “Stop!” (ditto) before shooting the man in the leg, severing a nerve and clipping his femoral artery (this one they agree on). Eighth Circuit: A jury has to figure out what happened; no qualified immunity. Dissent: Chaotic scenes like this are exactly why we have qualified immunity.
  • Independence, Mo. police officer pulls over a high-school student, seeks to arrest him without saying why. Instead, the cop tases the kid for at least 20 seconds, which knocks him out, and then drags and drops him face-first (still unconscious) onto the concrete, breaking several teeth. The Taser—a “less lethal weapon”—sends the kid into cardiac arrest. He’s resuscitated by medical responders but suffers a permanent brain injury. A jury awards $6.5 mil in compensatory and punitive damages, and the (now former) cop is sentenced to four years in prison. Cop: Qualified immunity? Not a chance, says the Eighth Circuit, though the court does reduce the punitive damages by half a mil.
  • CIRCUIT SPLIT RED ALERT. Under the “safety valve” provision of 2018’s First Step Act, drug offenders with certain criminal histories are exempt from federal mandatory minimums. In simplified terms, an offender is eligible for the safety valve only if his criminal history “does not have X, Y, and Z.” But wait a minute. Does that mean that someone with just X is eligible or not? The Eleventh Circuit holds that offenders are eligible only if they do not have X, and do not have Y, and do not have Z. The Ninth Circuit holds that offenders are eligible as long they do not have all of X, Y, and Z. And because all three aren’t that likely to happen together, a broad exception is now seriously limiting mandatory drug minimums in the Ninth Circuit. Your editors humbly predict that this one is going to SCOTUS.