Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled that the Department of Justice cannot bypass standard procedures under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 by directly appointing a first assistant U.S. Attorney to fill a vacant position, thereby triggering their automatic elevation to interim U.S. Attorney. This decision aligns with previous rulings from other circuits, which have uniformly rejected the idea that the attorney general can circumvent these procedural safeguards. The case centered around the interpretation of the act’s language, which requires that the first assistant be appointed through the usual process before becoming eligible for promotion. The court’s majority held that such a maneuver would violate the intent of the legislation, reinforcing existing precedent. In another notable case, a man from Waterbury, Connecticut, was arrested after videorecording the local police station from a public sidewalk and refusing to show identification to officers. Although the prosecution eventually dropped the charges, the Second Circuit upheld the arrest, citing the time of day, dusk, and the individual’s failure to respond to officers’ inquiries. While the court acknowledged the growing consensus that recording the police is protected under the First Amendment, it ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. A concurring opinion noted that the individual was not actually recording the police at the moment of arrest, adding nuance to the broader constitutional debate. A developing legal dispute surrounding the 26th Amendment has sparked a circuit split. The Fourth Circuit recently ruled that South Carolina’s refusal to provide no-excuse absentee ballots to voters over the age of 65 constitutes a denial of the right to vote based on age, violating the amendment. However, earlier decisions by the Fifth and Seventh Circuits upheld similar provisions in Texas and Indiana, respectively. This divergence raises questions about the consistency of judicial interpretations regarding voting rights and age-based distinctions. Legal scholars suggest that the Supreme Court may eventually need to resolve this conflict, given its potential implications for election law. In a separate development, the Fourth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of a new Department of Homeland Security policy that permits immigration enforcement activities near or within houses of worship. The ruling came in response to a challenge brought by Quaker, Sikh, and Baptist organizations, who argued that the policy could deter religious participation and create a chilling effect on freedom of assembly. The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, though the decision does not yet constitute a final judgment on the legality of the policy itself. Another case involving the Fourth Amendment arose in Montgomery County, Maryland, following a 2017 incident in which police responded to a 911 call about a Black man allegedly putting children in a vehicle trunk. Upon arriving at the location, officers encountered a criminal law professor who claimed everything was fine and attempted to enter his home. After forcibly entering the premises, the officers confirmed the safety of the children. The court ruled that the entry did not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure, rejecting claims of a Fourth Amendment violation despite the lack of probable cause. In Louisiana, a grandmother alleged she was subjected to an unconstitutional strip search after officers discovered prescription drugs in her vehicle and refused to allow her to present her prescriptions. A district court ruled that the search was unlawful and denied the officers qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit agreed to review the case, indicating that further proceedings will determine whether the officers’ actions meet the threshold for protection under the law. Meanwhile, in Texas, a head shop owner and employee faced charges related to the sale of illegal edibles, but the charges were later dismissed due to inconsistencies in the evidence. Laboratory results showed the presence of THC but failed to establish the necessary concentration levels to classify the items as illegal. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, noting that the officers’ testimony lacked sufficient clarity to justify the charges. The case highlights ongoing challenges in enforcing drug laws with precision and consistency. In Austin, Texas, a man was arrested after officers alleged he grabbed a police horse’s reins and struck another, resulting in serious injuries. However, after reviewing the available footage, all charges were dropped. The officers maintained that their use of force was justified based on the man’s attempt to remove his arm from their grasp. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the case should proceed to trial, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the proportionality of the force used in light of the circumstances.