The case revolves around the defendant, Maurice Williams, whose supervised release was revoked after evidence was presented that he sold fentanyl to a confidential informant (CI) during a controlled buy. Williams had previously pleaded guilty to charges of distributing crack cocaine and unlawful possession of a firearm. His supervised release was revoked in 2020 due to violation of his release conditions, and he was sentenced to an additional 18 months’ imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release. In 2023, his supervised release was recommended for revocation again due to alleged violations including unlawful possession of a controlled substance and committing another crime.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas held a revocation hearing where the government introduced evidence of the controlled buy, including testimony from Kansas City Police Officers and a video of the controlled buy. The court found that Williams sold fentanyl and therefore committed a Grade A violation, but did not find a violation related to the firearm. The court revoked his term of supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Williams argued that the district court erred by admitting evidence of the controlled buy without conducting an interest-of-justice balancing test under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C) to determine whether the CI should have been required to be available for cross-examination at the hearing, and that the evidence was insufficient to show that he sold fentanyl. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, stating that no balancing test was required because the court did not rely on any hearsay statements by the CI, and the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt by a preponderance of the evidence. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Regents of the University of California (Regents) approved the construction of a new hospital at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Parnassus Heights campus. The Parnassus Neighborhood Coalition (the Coalition), a group of local property owners, sued to halt the construction, arguing it would violate local building height and bulk restrictions. The Regents countered that as a state entity, they were immune from local building and zoning regulations when engaging in governmental activities, such as constructing university buildings. The trial court disagreed, ruling that the question of whether the construction constituted a governmental or proprietary activity could not be resolved at this stage.The trial court concluded that the Regents' immunity depended on whether the proposed construction was a governmental or proprietary activity, a question of fact that could not be resolved on a demurrer. The court further concluded that the exemption only applies when a project is solely for educational purposes. The Regents petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s order.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three reviewed the case. The court held that the proposed hospital would facilitate the provision of clinical services, thereby advancing UCSF’s academic mission and the Regents’ educational purpose, which is a governmental activity. Therefore, the project falls within the Regents’ broad public purpose, and the Regents are exempt from the local regulations at issue. The court concluded that the demurrer should have been sustained and issued the writ of mandate. The court also ordered modifications to the published opinion filed on June 13, 2024, but there was no change in the judgment. View "Regents of the University of Calif. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In a case involving the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was asked to determine whether the PLCB is a "person" under Section 8303 of the Judicial Code and, if so, whether sovereign immunity bars mandamus damages sought under that provision. The case arose from the PLCB's failure to implement procedures to facilitate the direct shipment of special orders to customers, as required by law. The Commonwealth Court had issued a declaratory judgment to that effect and a writ of mandamus compelling the PLCB to comply. The Wine Vendors and Log Cabin subsequently applied for mandamus damages under Section 8303, which the PLCB contested, arguing that it was not a "person" under the statute and that sovereign immunity barred such damages.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the PLCB is a "person" within the meaning of Section 8303 and that sovereign immunity does not bar mandamus damages available under that provision. The court also held that attorneys’ fees awarded in relation to Section 8303 are not barred by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the holdings of the Commonwealth Court and remanded for further proceedings. View "MFW WINE CO., LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a request for disclosure of certain redacted contents of the Internal Revenue Manual under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by T. Keith Fogg. The redacted contents pertain to the IRS's unique authentication procedures used in special situations to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive taxpayer information, identity theft, and criminal fraud. The IRS claimed these redacted contents were exempt from FOIA disclosure under Exemption 7(E) as they were records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes.The District Court for the District of Minnesota initially granted summary judgment to the IRS, holding that Exemption 7(E) applied to the redacted contents. Fogg appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court for an in-camera inspection of the redacted contents.Upon inspection, the district court again concluded that Exemption 7(E) applied to the redacted contents as they served a law enforcement purpose and involved exceptional situations of a heightened risk of fraud or identity theft. The court granted summary judgment to the IRS once more.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the redacted contents were techniques and procedures used for law enforcement investigations, akin to background checks. The court also concluded that the IRS had met its burden under the foreseeable harm requirement, showing that disclosure of the redacted contents would foreseeably harm the IRS's interest in preventing circumvention of the law. View "Fogg v. IRS" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the Town of Bar Harbor's decision to present several proposed changes to its municipal charter as separate questions to voters, rather than as a single package. The changes were recommended by a charter commission and included modifications to various areas of the town's governance. A group of voters, led by Michael Good, challenged this approach, arguing that the changes were not "minor modifications" and should have been presented as a single "revision" of the charter.The Superior Court (Hancock County, Anderson, J.) agreed with Good and nullified the changes, ruling that they were not minor modifications and should have been presented as a single revision. The court also found procedural irregularities in how the changes were developed and submitted.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with the lower court's interpretation. The court held that the charter commission acted legally in determining that its recommendations constituted minor modifications and proposing that they be submitted to the voters in nine separate articles. The court also found that none of the claimed procedural irregularities nullified the vote. Therefore, the court vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for the court to enter a judgment for the Town on Good’s complaint. View "Good v. Town of Bar Harbor" on Justia Law

The case involves an Asian American federal employee, Tommy Ho, who alleged that his employer declined to promote him in retaliation for his previous activity protected by Title VII. Ho had been employed as a criminal investigator in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) since 1999. He filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint in 2015 alleging racial discrimination. In 2017 and 2018, he applied for three promotions but was not selected for any of them. Ho filed two more EEO complaints alleging that these non-selections were due to retaliation. The case at hand centers on Ho's application for a program manager position in 2019, for which he was not selected.The district court dismissed Ho's complaint, holding that it failed to sufficiently allege a causal connection between Ho's protected EEO activity and his non-selection for the program manager position. The court concluded that the ten-month gap between Ho's latest protected activity and his non-selection was too long to support an inference of causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that, when viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to Ho, his allegations narrowly sufficed to support a plausible inference that his protected activity was a but-for cause of his non-selection. The court noted that Ho had previously complained about the conduct of the very people responsible for filling the opening, and that he was qualified for the position. The court also noted that the alleged reason for Ho's non-selection was entirely subjective. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Ho v. Garland" on Justia Law

The case revolves around John Thomas Bujak, who pleaded guilty to grand theft and was placed on probation with the condition of serving thirty days in jail. Bujak scheduled his jail time on weekends to maintain his employment during the week. After serving his first jail stay from Friday morning to Sunday morning, Bujak learned that he would receive credit for two days of jail time. He then moved the district court for credit for time served, arguing that he should receive three days credit because he served time over the course of three calendar days.The district court denied Bujak’s motion, interpreting that the terms of its probation order required Bujak to serve thirty, twenty-four-hour periods in jail. Bujak appealed this decision, arguing that Idaho Code section 18-309 required the district court to award him one day of credit for each partial day of jail time he served.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s order. The court concluded that neither section 18-309 nor section 19-2603 applies to the calculation of Bujak’s time served. Instead, the court found that Idaho Code section 19-2601(3) controls, which allows a district court to withhold judgment and impose probation terms it deems necessary and appropriate. The court agreed with the district court's interpretation that Bujak was required to serve thirty, twenty-four-hour days in jail as a term of his probation. View "State v. Bujak" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the award of black lung benefits to the surviving wife of the late Bruce E. Goode, who worked for American Energy as a coal miner and suffered from a severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disability. American Energy disputed the cause of his impairment, arguing that it was due to his long-term cigarette smoking, not his coal mine employment. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Goode’s disability arose from his coal mine employment and awarded black lung benefits. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the award.American Energy appealed, arguing that the ALJ applied an incorrect legal standard. The company contended that the Black Lung Benefits Act and its implementing regulations require a miner to prove that coal dust caused the lung disease or made it worse. American Energy argued that the ALJ reversed the burden of proof by finding that the company had not proven why Mr. Goode’s lung disease was not at least partially due to coal dust exposure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard in determining that Mr. Goode had legal pneumoconiosis. However, the court noted that the ALJ also concluded that Mr. Goode’s clinical pneumoconiosis entitled him to benefits. The court granted American Energy’s petition and vacated and remanded the Board’s order for further proceedings. View "American Energy, LLC v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

The case involves Corner Post, a merchant that accepts debit cards as a form of payment. Debit card transactions require merchants to pay an "interchange fee" to the bank that issued the card. The fee amount is set by the payment networks (such as Visa and MasterCard) that process the transaction. In 2010, Congress tasked the Federal Reserve Board with ensuring that interchange fees were "reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction." In 2011, the Board published Regulation II, which sets a maximum interchange fee of $0.21 per transaction plus .05% of the transaction’s value.In 2021, Corner Post joined a suit against the Board under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging Regulation II on the ground that it allows higher interchange fees than the statute permits. The District Court dismissed the suit as time-barred under 28 U. S. C. §2401(a), the default six-year statute of limitations applicable to suits against the United States. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Eighth Circuit. The Court held that an APA claim does not accrue for purposes of §2401(a)’s 6-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. The Court disagreed with the Board's argument that an APA claim “accrues” under §2401(a) when agency action is “final” for purposes of §704; the claim can accrue for purposes of the statute of limitations even before the plaintiff suffers an injury. The Court held that a right of action “accrues” when the plaintiff has a “complete and present cause of action,” which is when she has the right to “file suit and obtain relief.” Because an APA plaintiff may not file suit and obtain relief until she suffers an injury from final agency action, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until she is injured. View "Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors" on Justia Law

In 2021, Florida and Texas enacted statutes regulating large social-media companies and other internet platforms. The laws curtailed the platforms' ability to engage in content moderation and required them to provide reasons to a user if they removed or altered her posts. NetChoice LLC, a trade association whose members include Facebook and YouTube, brought First Amendment challenges against the two laws. District courts in both states entered preliminary injunctions.The Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction of Florida’s law, holding that the state's restrictions on content moderation trigger First Amendment scrutiny. The court concluded that the content-moderation provisions are unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit, however, disagreed and reversed the preliminary injunction of the Texas law. The court held that the platforms’ content-moderation activities are “not speech” at all, and so do not implicate the First Amendment.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgments and remanded the cases, stating that neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. The Court held that the laws interfere with protected speech, as they prevent the platforms from compiling the third-party speech they want in the way they want, thus producing their own distinctive compilations of expression. The Court also held that Texas's asserted interest in correcting the mix of viewpoints that major platforms present is not valid under the First Amendment. View "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC" on Justia Law