Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
New cert petition: When the gov’t takes property for a public use, it must provide just compensation – including when the gov’t destroys property. But last year, the Fifth Circuit held that that time-honored rule doesn’t apply when the gov’t has a really, really good reason to destroy property, and thus the City of McKinney, Tex. need not pay an innocent homeowner for catastrophic damage from a SWAT raid in pursuit of a (trespassing) fugitive. But wait! The gov’t is always supposed to have a good reason when it’s taking private property, and there is no historically based exception to the compensation requirement for law enforcement. Click here to learn more.
- Before and during the Civil War, five tribes kept slaves and allied with the Confederacy. After the war, the feds entered into a series of treaties that abolished slavery in the tribes and provided certain rights, including property, for the Freedmen. The granddaughter of George Curls, a Cherokee Freedman, alleges that he received 60 acres under these agreements as a minor, which were then leased for oil and gas drilling, generating substantial revenue that he was entitled to. But the feds cannot account for the funds—did they breach a fiduciary duty? D.C. Circuit: She has standing to assert her claim, at least, but the nonprofit claiming associational standing on behalf of the Freedmen’s descendants doesn’t.
- It’s not incredibly surprising that there’s a defamation case involving a conspiracy theorist who speculated that DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered on orders from Hillary Clinton, that his brother was covering things up, and that one of Rich’s friends was involved. What’s somewhat more surprising is that the conspiracy theorist brought the defamation case, suing NPR and others for reporting about him. D.C. Circuit: And his claims fail. Some are barred because the conspiracy theorist, a limited-purpose public figure, failed to allege actual malice. Others because the alleged defamatory statements—including that he is a “troll,” “crankster,” and “bully”—are all protected opinion.
- Ayahuasca-related church: We would like 501(c)(3) status please. IRS: But a big part of what you do is distribute illegal drugs, and you haven’t gotten an exemption from the DEA. Church: Your refusal to grant us (c)(3) status violates our rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. D.C. Circuit: No standing. Sure, you alleged that your lack of (c)(3) status led to the loss of charitable contributions you’d otherwise have received. But that harm is traceable to your putative donors’ stinginess, not the IRS.
- A retired truck driver was brutally murdered in his New Milford, Conn. home shortly before Christmas 1985. Two teenagers are accused of stabbing him 27 times and beating him as part of a botched burglary. They’re convicted after famed forensic scientist Henry Lee testified that a towel at the crime scene tested positive for blood when, in fact, no test had been conducted. (Prosecutors claimed that the teens used the towels to clean off after the murders, which was why no blood was found on them or their items later.) Connecticut Supreme Court (2019): Both convictions are tossed. After 30 years in prison, they’re released. Second Circuit: No qualified immunity (at least not yet) for two police officers; to a factfinder the men’s claims must go.
- Pennsylvania man is convicted of murder and appeals through the state court system. He ultimately loses at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court but receives no notice of the ruling. Uh oh! When the trial court dockets the Supreme Court’s ruling, it gets the date wrong, recording it as March 16, 2015, rather than February 19, 2015. The error is not detected until the man files a federal habeas petition, which is dismissed for being 14 days too late (it would have been timely under the date recorded by the trial court). Is he out of luck? District court: Yup! Third Circuit (unpublished): Vacated! Equitable tolling saves the day.
- New Jersey AG: Hey Smith & Wesson, nice-looking documents you got there, mind if we take a look? Oh, and here’s a subpoena. S&W: Files papers resisting the subpoena in state court and a civil rights lawsuit in federal court. Federal district court: Younger abstention! Third Circuit (2022): Actually, there’s no Younger here. Federal district court: Fine, but my earlier Younger ruling slowed S&W’s roll for so long that now the state court proceedings are over. Since it lost there it also loses here automatically. Third Circuit (2024): You snooze (OK, you didn’t snooze, but federal proceedings took so long that) you lose. Dissent: Um, the state courts didn’t reach the merits of all the claims. What am I missing here?
- Fourth Circuit: Sure, the federal gov’t sent you letters saying your fireworks were overloaded and therefore banned and asking you to destroy them, but that wasn’t a final agency action. That’s just, like, their opinion, man.
- Aspiring DEA special agent seems to be on the fast track to employment until the DEA learns that she is involved in a class action lawsuit against the FBI for sex discrimination. Suddenly the DEA is extremely concerned that she took a single Adderall pill at age 15 and was fired from part-time summer job with Kitchen Kaboodle at age 19
Article from Latest
![](https://libertarianguide.com/wp-content/uploads/reason-logo-square.jpeg)
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.