#Human Rights Defense Center v. United States Park Police - [D.C. Cir.]

#Background:

The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about legal actions against the U.S. Park Police. The Park Police failed to respond, leading to a FOIA lawsuit.

The Park Police eventually produced the documents, but withheld names of officers involved in three tort settlements, citing FOIA Exemption 6, which protects against "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

A separate legal dispute was created as a result of the Park Police inadvertently disclosing other names which it intended to withhold. The Park Police argued that HRDC should be barred from using or disseminating this information.

The district court ruled that the Park Police correctly withheld officer names under Exemption 6 and issued a clawback order for the other names which were inadvertently disclosed.

###Did the Park Police satisfy the criteria for withholding the information under Exemption 6?

Exemption 6 analysis proceeds in two steps:

1. Does the disclosure compromise a substantial, as opposed to a de minimis, privacy interest?

2. Does the value of the information being withheld to the public outweigh the privacy interest?

Starting with the first step:

###Does the disclosure compromise a substantial, as opposed to a de minimis, privacy interest?

No. The Park Police's privacy assertions are wholly conclusory, lacking even minimal substantiation of the officers privacy interest or the potential harm for disclosing their names.

Merely alleging that the officer's interest outweighs the public's, or that the benefit to the public is de minimis, is not enough.

Likewise, a concrete basis must be provided to conclude that releasing the names raises threats more palpable than "mere possibilities".

The Park Police's reasoning that disclosure would potentially bring undue public attention, harassment, retaliation, and embarrassment, does not show an invasion that is "clearly unwarranted".

###Does the value of the information being withheld to the public outweigh the privacy interest?

Because the Park Police does not satisfy the first step of Exemption 6 analysis, we do not need to proceed to step two.

###Did the Park Police comply with the FOIA Improvement Act?

No. The FOIA Improvement Act imposes additional obligations on agencies, requiring the disclosure of information covered by an exemption, unless it "reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption" or if "disclosure is prohibited by law".

This imposes a burden on identifying the nature of the harm and on showing that the harm will likely result from disclosure of the information.

Because the Park Police did not establish a foreseeable harm, as opposed to "speculative or abstract fears", the Park Police failed to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act.

###Should the Park Police have the opportunity to develop the record on remand?

No. The Park Police argue that there has been an "interim development in applicable legal doctrine" from subsequent court rulings, warranting the opportunity to develop the record on remand.

There has been no change in the law bearing on this case. It should have been apparent from the text alone that the FOIA improvement Act requires a particularized inquiry into foreseeable harms that would result from disclosure.

Regardless, any rulings affecting the interpretation of the Improvement Act are immaterial, as the Park Police failed to meet its initial burden under Exemption 6.

Thus, the Park Police are not entitled to the opportunity to supplement its showing.

###Did the district court err in ordering a clawback of the other inadvertently disclosed names?

Yes. The district court's order was not a valid exercise of Article III courts' authority.

FOIA does not provide for the compelled return or destruction of inadvertently produced information. The court instead invoked an "implied" power to create a mechanism for doing so.

No evidence was provided that establishes this implied power by historical practice. This order was not to support a core judicial authority, but to fill a perceived hole in the FOIA statute by enabling the government to "put the proverbial cat back in the bag".

If an agency fails to make intended reactions, neither FOIA nor any inherent judicial authority enables it to seek a court order to limit the effects of its error.

###Is such a clawback order in violation of the First Amendment?

Because our non-constitutional analysis is dispositive, we do not reach that issue today.

#IN SUM:

• The Police did not meet its threshold burden under Exemption 6 and did not demonstrate that foreseeable harm would ensue from disclosure. The district court's summary judgment in favor of the Park Police is VACATED.

• The order barring the use or dissemination of the inadvertently disclosed information was not a valid exercise of Article III courts' authority. The district court's clawback order is VACATED.

• The case is REMANDED for the district court to enter an order directing the Park Police to remove the redactions in the documents and to release them to HRDC.

In United States v. Arthrex (2021), Chief Justice Roberts favorably cites Justice Scalia’s rebuttal to his own dissent in Arlington v. FCC (2013).

Roberts Dissent:

One of the principal authors of the Constitution famously wrote that the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison). Although modern administrative agencies fit most comfortably within the Executive Branch, as a practical matter they exercise legislative power, by promulgating regulations with the force of law; executive power, by policing compliance with those regulations; and judicial power, by adjudicating enforcement actions and imposing sanctions on those found to have violated their rules. The accumulation of these powers in the same hands is not an occasional or isolated exception to the constitutional plan; it is a central feature of modern American government.

Scalia's reply:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S discomfort with the growth of agency power, see post, at 2–4, is perhaps understandable. But the dissent overstates when it claims that agencies exercise “legislative power” and “judicial power.” Post, at 2; see also post, at 16. The former is vested exclusively in Congress, U. S. Const., Art. I, §1, the latter in the “one supreme Court” and “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,” Art. III, §1. Agencies make rules (“Private cattle may be grazed on public lands X, Y, and Z subject to certain conditions”) and conduct adjudications (“This rancher’s grazing permit is revoked for violation of the conditions”) and have done so since the beginning of the Republic. These activities take “legislative” and “judicial” forms, but they are exercises of—indeed, under our constitutional structure they must be exercises of—the “executive Power.” Art. II, §1, cl. 1

Roberts in 2021:

The activities of executive officers may “take ‘legislative’ and ‘judicial’ forms, but they are exercises of—indeed, under our constitutional structure they must be exercises of—the ‘executive Power,’ ” for which the President is ultimately responsible. Arlington v. FCC, 569 U. S. 290, 305, n. 4 (2013)

This undermines Humphrey's logic that "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial" powers are not executive power.

The purpose of this megathread is to provide a dedicated space for information and discussion regarding legal challenges to Donald Trump's Executive Orders.

Separate submissions that provide high-quality legal analysis of the constitutional issues/doctrine involved may still be approved at the moderator's discretion.

'News'-esque posts, on the other hand, should be directed to this thread. This includes announcements of executive/legislative actions and pre-Circuit/SCOTUS litigation.

Our last megathread, Legal Challenges to Trump's Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship, remains open for those seeking more specific discussion about that EO (you can also discuss it here, if you want). Additionally, you are always welcome to discuss in the 'Ask Anything' Mondays or 'Lower Court Development' Wednesdays weekly threads.

#Legal Challenges (compilation via JustSecurity):

Birthright citizenship - Link to EO

• [New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump]

• [O. Doe v. Trump]

• [State of New Jersey et al v. Trump]

• [Casa Inc. v. Trump]

• [State of Washington v. Trump]

• [OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio]

Update: 14-day temporary restraining order in effect starting Jan 23rd.

“Expedited removal” - Link to EO

• [Make the Road New York v. Huffman]

Discontinuation of CBP One app - Link to EO

• [Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security]

Reinstatement of Schedule F for policy/career employees - Link to EO

• [National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump]

• [Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Trump]

Establishment of “DOGE” - Link to EO

• [Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump]

• [Lentini v. Department of Government Efficiency]

• [American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget]

• [Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management and Budget]

“Temporary pause” of grants, loans, and assistance programs - Link to memo

• [National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget]

• [State of New York v. Trump]

Update: administrative stay ordered in NCN v. OMB to allow arguments.

Update: challenged OMB memo rescinded, with the White House Press Secretary stating "This is not a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo."

Housing of transgender inmates - Link to EO

• [Moe v. Trump]

Update: temporary restraining order reportedly issued.

Immigration enforcement against places of worship - Link to directive

• [Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security]

Ban on transgender individuals serving in the military - Link to EO

• [Talbott v. Trump]

#Resources:

Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions - JustSecurity

Tracking the Legal Showdown Over Trump’s Executive Orders - US News

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Lower Court Development' thread! This weekly thread is intended to provide a space for:

U.S. District, State Trial, State Appellate, and State Supreme Court rulings involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

Note: U.S. Circuit court rulings are not limited to these threads, as their one degree of separation to SCOTUS is relevant enough to warrant their own posts. They may still be discussed here.

It is expected that top-level comments include:

- The name of the case and a link to the ruling

- A brief summary or description of the questions presented

Subreddit rules apply as always. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Andrew quotes well-worn AEPDA 2254d1-2: "To show that a state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law, a petitioner must show that the court unreasonably applied "the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s decisions.” 604 US [5 in the pdf] (2025).

1. Does that make AEPDA cases the only cases wherein SCOTUS's majority opinions explicitly discuss holding/dicta, bc otherwise the dicta enterprise is almost entirely pointlessly academic? Just because some academic figure calls something dicta doesn't make it so.

Basically: the Andrew per curiam ruled SCOTUS's earlier case (Payne v TN 1991) held X "because of" Y; Y "was therefore indispensable to the decision in Payne. That means it was a holding of this Ct for purposes of AEPDA." Id 6. Hence for AEPDA purposes Payne held both X & Y, so Y was part of the corpus of "clearly established federal law" whereon petitioner can rely.

The Andrew dissent (Js Thomas & Gorsuch) disagree: Payne held X, but reasonable jurists could disagree about whether Payne also held Y. They probably think Y is not a holding, but AEPDA's "can reasonable jurists disagree about this" is a lower & easier threshold.

2. Are the justices' views on holding/dicta expressed in Andrew limited to AEPDA? Because I'm sure there were a few high-profile opinions from just last term (no need to name specific cases, but they were non-AEPDA cases) where several justices--in both the per curiam & the dissent--cast votes indicating the exact opposite position of the stance they expressed in Andrew on the following proposition: "if SCOTUS case A holds X 'because of' Y, does A hold both X & Y; OR solely X, leaving Y dicta?"

2a. Several times Andrew says "for purposes of AEPDA." Does that language qualify its holding/dicta language & limit it to AEPDA cases only, bc the lens thru which it examines previous caselaw is not a clean "SCOTUS case A held X; did it also hold Y, or is Y dicta?" but rather AEPDA-unique: "can reasonable jurists disagree about whether Y is a holding?"

So, as you probably know, Trump granted a "full and unconditional" pardon to Ross Ulbricht on his second day in office. But looking at the pardon warrant itself, there appears to be an error. The pardon states that it covers Ulbricht's conviction of, inter alia, violating section 1082(f) of title 18 of the US code. However 18 U.S. Code § 1082 has to do with gambling ships, which are unrelated to Ulbricht's convictions. 18 U.S. Code § 1028(f), however, would cover his conviction related to fake ID documents. The US code citations covering his other convictions in the pardon appear to be correct.

So, my question is, how do you think the court would likely interpret the apparent typo (the swapping of 1028(f) for 1082(f)) if the issue came before them? It seems relatively unlikely that it'll be litigated as Ulbricht has been released, but I'm curious nonetheless. Do you think the pardon would be interpreted as still covering the fake ID conviction, because it seems to have been intended to?

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Ask Anything' thread! This weekly thread is intended to provide a space for:

• Simple, straight forward questions seeking factual answers (e.g. "What is a GVR order?", "Where can I find Supreme Court briefs?", "What does [X] mean?").

​

• Lighthearted questions that would otherwise not meet our standard for quality. (e.g. "Which Hogwarts house would each Justice be sorted into?")

​

• Discussion starters requiring minimal input or context from OP (e.g. "What do people think about [X]?", "Predictions?")

Please note that although our quality standards are relaxed in this thread, our other rules apply as always. Incivility and polarized rhetoric are never permitted. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

This Article argues that it was an unconstitutional use of the tie breaking vote. That while the VP can break a tie on passing a bill they cannot break a tie when it comes to advice and consent.

I find this argument surprisingly compelling. My gut reaction was “well why would it be unconstitutional” but upon reading Hamilton’s statement in Federalist No. 69: “In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made.”

Even more so while the VP is technically a member of the Senate by being the President of the Senate he does not have a regular voting role. Further more on the matter of separate but co-equal branches of government the VP is always and forever will be a pure executive role. It seems it would be a conflict of interest or at least an inappropriate use of the executive power to be the deciding vote on a legislative function such as “advise and consent of the senate”

The article puts it better than I can so I’ll quote

the vice president can break a tie in the Senate, but has zero say in the House of Representatives. Breaking a tie on judicial appointments, though, would give the vice president power over the entire appointments process, since it is only the Senate that weighs in on such matters.

Personally this article convinced me that it likely is unconstitutional (if challenged)

At the time of our founding it would’ve been impossible for the VP to break a tie and confirm a position because there needed to be a 3/5th majority to invoke cloture. Until the rules were changed well after the fact it was an actual impossibility for the VP to do this.

Thoughts?

———————————

Relevant clauses for posterity

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

And

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ex-solicitor-general-prelogar-takes-harvard-law-teaching-gig

https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/elizabeth-prelogar/

Looks like we found out what Prelogar will be doing for at least this spring. In short, she'll be a visiting professor at Harvard Law (where she graduated).

Which makes a lot of sense to me. She is honestly the best of the best. Added that she'll teach alongside Michael Dreeben is like putting a dream team together.

The purpose of this megathread is to provide a dedicated space for information and discussion regarding legal challenges to Donald Trump's Executive Order to end birthright citizenship, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship". Future posts relating to this topic may be directed here.

###Summary of the Executive Order:

It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons:

• when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or

• when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

This applies to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of the order.

###Text of the Fourteenth Amendment § 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

###Notable litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Status: 14-day temporary restraining order GRANTED

• The emergency motion for a 14-day temporary restraining order, filed by Plaintiff States Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, has been GRANTED by Judge John Coughenour. The order is effective at 11AM on Jan. 23rd.

• "I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

• “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour, an appointee of Ronald Reagan, said from the bench. “There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say where were the judges, where were the lawyers?”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Status: Complaint filed

• Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by Plaintiff states New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the city of San Francisco.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Status: Complaint filed

• Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by N.H. Indonesian Community Support, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Status: Complaint filed

• Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by O. Doe, et al.

• The complaint states that the baby’s father is not a U.S. citizen and Doe, lawfully present in the country under Temporary Protected Status, is not a lawful permanent resident. Doe is expected to give birth in March.

Greetings amici!

From 3:30-5:00 PM EST, Patrick Jaicomo and Dylan Moore from the Institute for Justice have graciously agreed to hear questions from our community regarding their work with the Institute for Justice, the Supreme Court, legal advocacy in general, or, well, anything!

###Patrick Jaicomo:

Patrick Jaicomo (u/pjaicomo) is a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice and one of the leaders of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability. Through the project, Patrick works to dismantle judicially created immunity doctrines and ensure that government officials are held accountable when they violate the Constitution.

In November 2020, Patrick argued the police brutality case Brownback v. King before the U.S. Supreme Court. In March 2024, Patrick returned to the high court for the First Amendment retaliation case Gonzalez v. Trevino and again in October 2024, when the court granted, vacated, and reversed the denial of a similar retaliation claim in Murphy v. Schmitt. Patrick has litigated immunity and accountability issues—including qualified immunity, judicial immunity, and the restriction of constitutional claims against federal workers—across the United States and at every level of the court system.

Before joining IJ, Patrick was a litigator at a private firm in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he cultivated a civil rights practice and handled a variety of cases in state and federal court. He earned his law degree from the University of Chicago and a degree in economics and political science from the University of Notre Dame.

Patrick’s work has been featured in numerous publications, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and USA Today. He has also appeared on numerous podcasts and television programs, authored academic articles, and frequently gives presentations on his areas of expertise.

###Dylan Moore:

Dylan Moore (u/dmoore_ij) is a Litigation Fellow at the Institute for Justice. He returns to IJ after working as a Dave Kennedy Fellow in the summer of 2020.

Before coming back to IJ, Dylan clerked for the Honorable Robert T. Numbers, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. He also spent a summer as a Legal Intern at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Dylan—a native Midwesterner—received his undergraduate degree in business economics and public policy from Indiana University. He went on to graduate from the University of Chicago Law School. During law school, he served as the Executive Articles Editor for the University of Chicago Legal Forum, the university’s topical law journal.

###About the Institute for Justice:

IJ is a nonprofit, public interest law firm. Our mission is to end widespread abuses of government power and secure the constitutional rights that allow all Americans to pursue their dreams.

Litigation: IJ files cutting-edge constitutional cases in state and federal courts to defend the rights of our clients and set legal precedent that protects countless others like them.

Research: IJ produces one-of-a-kind, high-quality research to enhance our effectiveness in court, educate the public, and shape public debate around our key issues.

Legislation: IJ provides principled advocacy and issue-area expertise to support legislation that expands individual liberty and protects vital constitutional rights.

Activism: IJ trains and mobilizes the public to be advocates for freedom and justice in their own communities.

###What IJ has done:

• Argued at the U.S. Supreme Court 12 times, with 10 victories

-Returned $21 million in wrongfully seized assets

-Curtailed government abuse and expanded individual liberty through over 300 legislative reforms

-Saved 20,000 homes and businesses from eminent domain abuse

-Defended educational choice programs that have awarded more than 4 million scholarships

-Rolled back regulations in 44 distinct occupations

-Earned citations of their strategic research by the U.S. Supreme Court and over 400 legal, scholarly, and policy articles

-Won 63 national awards for outstanding communications and media relations

###Ways to support the Institute for Justice

Greetings law nerds and court watchers. I am coming in here with an official mod announcement. I made a comment about this in my recent post but in case you haven't seen it on this Thursday from 3:30 pm to 5:00 pm Patrick Jaicomo and Dylan Moore from the Institute for Justice have graciously agreed to be apart of a Reddit Ask Me Anything. I want to thank the both of them for agreeing to be apart of this as this is the first of its kind on this sub.

I am aware that my posts on this space have outed me as a pretty big fan of the Institute for Justice so this is why I am particularly excited for this. But let me give you a run down on the Institute for people who are new or have not heard of them previously.

The Institute for Justice is a public interest non profit law firm that was founded in 1991. Since their founding they have argued numerous cases in favor of economic liberty, school choice, freedom of speech, property rights, parental choice in education, and government accountability. As well as advocating against government immunity (qualified immunity). Since their founding the firm has argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court and won 10 of them. I will list the cases down below:

DeVillier v. Texas

Gonzales v. Trevino

Carson v. Makin

Timbs v. Indiana

Kelo v. New London

King v. Brownback

Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

Arizona Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett

Winn v. Garriot

Swedenburg v. Kelly

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

They fight for a variety of issues and have only suffered two losses before the supreme court to date. Now that you know a little bit more about the institute itself I shall now tell you about the two lawyers on the panel here..

First, Patrick Jaicomo. Mr. Jaicomo is a senior attorney with IJ and was actually my first introduction to them. I saw a tweet of his about IJ cases going to conference and posted it here. This post is still up to this day and I credit this post for how much I like IJ. It features a case on its second time at SCOTUS that being King v. Brownback which was argued by Mr. Jaicomo himself in 2020. Personally, I have been hoping to see Mr. Jaicomo in front of the court again due to the fact this argument happened virtually so I think he is entitled to a do over but that's just me. Mr. Jaicomo leads the Institute's Project on Immunity and Accountability with Anya Bidwell. Since the projects inception in 2019 they have had 3 grants before SCOTUS with Brownback, DeVillier, and Gonzales. As well as one GVR in light of Gonzales with Murphy v. Schmitt. They also have published studies on Qualified Immunity and its effects, a study that I also posted here. He has been featured in quite a few podcasts television appearances as well as havign his work published by famous news outlets. I am grateful to have him be one of our guests.

The second guest with our Ask Me Anything is fellow Institue for Justice attorney Dylan Moore. Dylan Moore is a litigation fellow at IJ and has also done work at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He is a former federal law clerk as he did clerk for Robert T. Numbers, II, a magistrate judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Mr. Moore has also litigated on a variety of issues from wrong house raids, to immunity on police lies, to IJ's fourth amendment project on private property and open fields doctrine. Mr. Moore has appeared in various episodes of the Short Circuit podcast like this one detailing a puppy caper out of the 8th circuit and on Beyond the Brief detailing the home demolition of a man in Bibbs County, Georgia. I hope to hear Mr. Moore argue in front of SCOTUS one day as I believe he is an exceptional attorney who has a lot of potential. I am glad that Mr. Moore is going to be joining this Ask Me Anything.

Now the point of this thread is to field questions for these two. whatever questions you have for them please put them in the comments. As I know not everyone will be available for the Q&A. I'll also tag their accounts so that they can come and introduce themselves on this post. Thank you to u/pjaicomo and u/dmoore_ij for participating and I will see everyone on Thursday for the Ask Me Anything.

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'Lower Court Development' thread! This weekly thread is intended to provide a space for:

U.S. District, State Trial, State Appellate, and State Supreme Court rulings involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

Note: U.S. Circuit court rulings are not limited to these threads, as their one degree of separation to SCOTUS is relevant enough to warrant their own posts. They may still be discussed here.

It is expected that top-level comments include:

- The name of the case and a link to the ruling

- A brief summary or description of the questions presented

Subreddit rules apply as always. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cunningham v. Cornell University

Question presented to the Court:

Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioners Casey Cunningham, et al.

Joint appendix

Brief amicus curiae of United States

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barnes v. Felix

Question presented to the Court:

Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioner Janice Hughes Barnes, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Ashtian Barnes, Deceased

Joint appendix

Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting vacatur and remand

Brief of respondent Roberto Felix, Jr.

Our quality standards are relaxed for this post, given its nature as a "reaction thread". All other rules apply as normal.

Starting this term, live commentary thread are available for each oral argument day. See the SCOTUSblog case calendar for upcoming oral arguments.

The executive order does not apply retroactively.

My question is: suppose, hypothetically, the Supreme Court reinterpreted the 14th Amendment and decided that only children of permanent residents born in the U.S. automatically become U.S. citizens (I know this is very unlikely, but just for the sake of discussion), how could they formulate their rationale to avoid making this retroactive?

The prohibition to Ex post facto laws doesn’t apply to judicial interpretation. If the Supreme Court says, “We have always misunderstood what the 14th Amendment means—it does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants or children of temporary visa holders,” wouldn’t that mean these people have never been citizens at all (even though Trump’s executive order doesn’t intend to make it retroactive)?

I understand it’s very unlikely the Supreme Court would reinterpret the 14th Amendment this way. However, as someone who might be impacted, I’d like to hear others’ thoughts on this hypothetical scenario.

Greetings law nerds and court watchers. I am coming in here with an official mod announcement. I made a comment about this in my recent post but in case you haven't seen it on this Thursday from 3:30 pm to 5:00 pm Patrick Jaicomo and Dylan Moore from the Institute for Justice have graciously agreed to be apart of a Reddit Ask Me Anything. I want to thank the both of them for agreeing to be apart of this as this is the first of its kind on this sub.

I am aware that my posts on this space have outed me as a pretty big fan of the Institute for Justice so this is why I am particularly excited for this. But let me give you a run down on the Institute for people who are new or have not heard of them previously.

The Institute for Justice is a public interest non profit law firm that was founded in 1991. Since their founding they have argued numerous cases in favor of economic liberty, school choice, freedom of speech, property rights, parental choice in education, and government accountability. As well as advocating against government immunity (qualified immunity). Since their founding the firm has argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court and won 10 of them. I will list the cases down below:

DeVillier v. Texas

Gonzales v. Trevino

Carson v. Makin

Timbs v. Indiana

Kelo v. New London

King v. Brownback

Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

Arizona Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett

Winn v. Garriot

Swedenburg v. Kelly

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

They fight for a variety of issues and have only suffered two losses before the supreme court to date. Now that you know a little bit more about the institute itself I shall now tell you about the two lawyers on the panel here..

First, Patrick Jaicomo. Mr. Jaicomo is a senior attorney with IJ and was actually my first introduction to them. I saw a tweet of his about IJ cases going to conference and posted it here. This post is still up to this day and I credit this post for how much I like IJ. It features a case on its second time at SCOTUS that being King v. Brownback which was argued by Mr. Jaicomo himself in 2020. Personally, I have been hoping to see Mr. Jaicomo in front of the court again due to the fact this argument happened virtually so I think he is entitled to a do over but that's just me. Mr. Jaicomo leads the Institute's Project on Immunity and Accountability with Anya Bidwell. Since the projects inception in 2019 they have had 3 grants before SCOTUS with Brownback, DeVillier, and Gonzales. As well as one GVR in light of Gonzales with Murphy v. Schmitt. They also have published studies on Qualified Immunity and its effects, a study that I also posted here. He has been featured in quite a few podcasts television appearances as well as havign his work published by famous news outlets. I am grateful to have him be one of our guests.

The second guest with our Ask Me Anything is fellow Institue for Justice attorney Dylan Moore. Dylan Moore is a litigation fellow at IJ and has also done work at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He is a former federal law clerk as he did clerk for Robert T. Numbers, II, a magistrate judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Mr. Moore has also litigated on a variety of issues from wrong house raids, to immunity on police lies, to IJ's fourth amendment project on private property and open fields doctrine. Mr. Moore has appeared in various episodes of the Short Circuit podcast like this one detailing a puppy caper out of the 8th circuit and on Beyond the Brief detailing the home demolition of a man in Bibbs County, Georgia. I hope to hear Mr. Moore argue in front of SCOTUS one day as I believe he is an exceptional attorney who has a lot of potential. I am glad that Mr. Moore is going to be joining this Ask Me Anything.

Now the point of this thread is to field questions for these two. whatever questions you have for them please put them in the comments. As I know not everyone will be available for the Q&A. I'll also tag their accounts so that they can come and introduce themselves on this post. Thank you to u/pjaicomo and u/dmoore_ij for participating and I will see everyone on Thursday for the Ask Me Anything.

Supremecourt.gov Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation

Question presented to the Court:

Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioner McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc.

Brief of respondents McKesson Corporation, et al.

Brief amicus curiae of United States

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.

Question presented to the Court:

Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit.

Orders and Proceedings:

Brief of petitioners Food and Drug Administration, et al.

Brief of respondents R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., et al.

Our quality standards are relaxed for this post, given its nature as a "reaction thread". All other rules apply as normal.

Starting this term, live commentary thread are available for each oral argument day. See the SCOTUSblog case calendar for upcoming oral arguments.