Eleventh Circuit Tag

Copyright: Annotations to State Codes are not Protectible Works of Authorship, Placing Georgia Code Annotated in the Public Domain

Posted 27 Apr 2020 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Erich Eiselt

Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., No. 18-1150, 590 U.S. ___ (Apr. 27, 2020). Affirming the Eleventh Circuit-which had reversed the lower court, the Supreme Court holds that annotations to the Georgia Code are effectively produced by lawmakers, who cannot be "authors" for purposes of the Copyright Act, meaning that Lexis, which contracts with the State to license and distribute the annotated code, cannot prevent the annotated version from being placed in the public domain. The Copyright Act grants monopoly protection for "original...

Supreme Court Accepts First Amendment Retaliatory Arrest Case

Posted 14 Nov 2017 in Case Notes, Commentary, Roundup

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach is a double redux. The Supreme Court ruled on this case in 2013 on a maritime issue. The Court agreed to decide the issue this case presents in 2011, but ultimately failed to rule on it then. What if a police officer arrests someone in retaliation for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment but the officer also had probable cause to arrest that person for a different, legitimate reason? In Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach the Supreme Court will decide whether that person may sue the police officer for violating his or her First Amendment rights.

Supreme Court Tentatively Allows City Claims Against Banks for Discriminatory Lending to Proceed

Posted 11 May 2017 in Case Notes, Commentary, IMLA Briefs

The glass is more than half full after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bank of America v. Miami , but not as full as local governments would like. The Supreme Court could have completely shut down local government lawsuits against banks for discriminatory lending practices—but it didn’t. The Supreme Court also could have made it easier for local governments to prove these cases—but it didn’t. In Bank of America v. Miami , the Supreme Court held 5-3 that local governments have “standing” to bring Fair Housing Act (FHA) lawsuits against banks alleging discriminatory lending practices. But to win these claims local governments must show that their injuries were more than merely foreseeable. The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed an amicus brief in this case on the side of the City of Miami.

Supreme Court to Decide How Far Asset Forfeitures May Go

Posted 16 Jun 2015 in Case Notes, Commentary

Sila Luis was indicted on charges related to $45 million in Medicare fraud. Unsurprisingly, her personal assets amounted to much less than $45 million. The federal government sought to freeze the use of her assets not traceable to the fraud. She wanted to use them to hire an attorney. The question in Luis v. United States is whether not allowing a criminal defendant to use assets not traceable to a criminal offense to hire counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel. This case is relevant to state and local government for a few reasons. First, while the asset forfeiture in this case likely went to reimburse the federal government for the Medicaid fraud, generally, law enforcement involved receive asset forfeitures. Second, some state asset forfeiture laws, like the federal statute in this case, allow untainted assets to be substituted. Third, in some instances state and local governments, like the federal government in this case, are the victim of a fraud and seek to recoup as much of their losses as possible.

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted 24 Nov 2014 in Monday Morning Review

Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:

First Circuit

Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York v. Mun. of San Juan, No. 13-1605 (Nov. 20, 2014): The court upheld injunction against municipalities that had issued permits for gated communties in Puerto Rico that did not provide access to public streets for First-Amendment activities.

Third Circuit

Dougherty v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 13-3868 (Nov. 21, 2014): The court affirmed denial of motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in case presenting First-Amendment retaliation claim.

Sixth Circuit

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted 17 Nov 2014 in Monday Morning Review

Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:

Fourth Circuit

West v. Murphy, No. 13-2014 (Nov. 14, 2014): The court affirmed that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in 1983 action challenging strip searches of arrestees on Fourth-Amendment grounds.

Sixth Circuit

Williams v. City of Cleveland, No. 13-4162 (Nov. 10, 2014): The court ruled that plaintiff stated a plausible Fourth-Amendment claim when it alleges that jail required detainees to undress in presence of other detainees and sprayed their naked genitals with delousing solution.
Misewicz v. City of Memphis, No. 14-5053 (Nov. 14, 2014): The court affirmed grant of summary judgment for City in challenge under Fair Labor Standards Act regarding overtime pay.
S.L. v. Pierce Twp. Bd. of Trustees, No. 13-3892 (Nov. 17, 2014): The court affirmed summary judgment orders for defendants in case arising out of arrest of juvenile.

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted 10 Nov 2014 in Monday Morning Review

Here are the last two weeks' published decisions involving local governments:

Second Circuit

Golodner v. Berliner, No. 12-1173 (Oct. 27, 2014): In 1983 action alleging that City and City officials retaliated against Golodner for exercising his First-Amendment rights, the court affirmed that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.
Berman v. City of New York, No. 13-598 (Oct. 29, 2014): The court certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals in suit challenging City law that regulates debt-collection agencies.
Harris v. O'Hare, No. 12-4350 (Oct. 30, 2014): In suit claiming that officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered yard and shot and killed family dog, the court found that there was insufficient evidence of exigent circumstances to permit warrantless search.
Floyd v. City of New York, No. 13-3088 (Oct. 31, 2014): The court ruled that public-sector unions may not intervene into litigation concerning City's "stop-and-frisk" policy where the parties to the ligitation have agreed to settlement.

Sixth Circuit

What’s Next for Same-Sex Marriage?

Posted 09 Oct 2014 in Commentary

For the six reasons Lyle Denniston describes on SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court’s announcement on Monday that it would not hear any of the seven petitions striking down same-sex marriage bans was stunning.

Even though there was no circuit split, conventional wisdom indicated the Court would decide the issue because of its importance and because both sides asked the Court for review. Amy Howe also of SCOTUSblog and Scott Michelman writing on SCOTUSblog speculate as to the why the Court’s liberals and conservatives may have decided not to get involved in the issue now. In short, the liberals had nothing to lose by waiting, and both side face uncertainty about Justice Kennedy’s position on the issue. To understand where were are today with same-sex marriage a timetable is helpful.

On Sunday, 19 states recognized same-sex marriage.
On Monday, 11 more states were added from the Fourth (Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) Seventh (Wisconsin and Indiana) and Tenth Circuits (Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming).
On Tuesday 5 more states were added when the Ninth Circuit (Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, and Montana) struck down the Idaho and Nevada same-sex marriage bans. (Implementation of this decision is still being worked out).

Technically,

The Supreme Court and Simple Math

Posted 23 Sep 2014 in IMLA Briefs

Its simple math. Really. But will the Supreme Court do it? The Eleventh Circuit refused. The question in Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation is whether a state discriminates against rail carriers in violation of federal law even when rail carriers pay less in total state taxes than motor carriers? No, argues the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) in an amicus brief. Forty-two states exempt motor carriers from sales tax on diesel fuel. This case is relevant to local government because a number of cities and counties in Alabama impose an additional sales tax on railroad diesel fuel.

Rail carriers (railroads) in Alabama pay a four percent sales tax on diesel fuel. Motor carriers (trucks) pay an excise tax of 19-cents per gallon and no sales tax. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act (4-R) prohibits state and local governments from imposing taxes that discriminate against railroads. Since CSX filed its complaint, railroads paid less in sales tax than trucks paid in excise tax. But, the Eleventh Circuit refused to compare the total taxation of railroads and trucks to avoid the “Sisyphean burden of evaluating the fairness of the State's overall tax structure.” Instead it concluded Alabama’s sales tax on railroads violates 4-R because Alabama’s competitors don’t pay it. The SLLC brief argues that given state’s traditional power to tax the Court should interpret 4-R narrowly. The brief suggests the Court could take three approaches to rule in favor of Alabama.

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted 23 Sep 2014 in Monday Morning Review

Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:

Second Circuit

Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Inc. v. Litchfield Hist. Dist. Comm'n, No. 12-1057 (Sept. 19, 2014): The court ruled, in Religious Land Use and Instiutionalized Persons Act challege to historic district's denial of application to modify property for religious use, that district court: (i) erred in finding that rabbi lacked standing; and (ii) applied the wrong standard to determine that the historic district was entitled to summary judgment under RLUIPA.

Sixth Circuit

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, No. 13-5181 (Sept. 18, 2014): The court found that: (i) private animal-welfare employee that contracted with City may not assert qualified immunity; (ii) officers may not assert qualified-immunity defense to "official capacity" suits; (iii) seizure of animals without prior hearing did not violate procedural due process; (iv) revocation of permit without hearing did violate due process; (v) that warrantless animal seizure did not violate Fourth Amendment because of exigent circumstances; and (vi) seizure of records without warrant violated clearly established Fourth-Amendment right and therefore officer was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Finn v. Warren County, No. 13-6629 (Sept. 16, 2014): In action alleging inadequte medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment and state law claims including negligence after Finn died in his cell, the court reversed grant of summary judgment for officer, remanded for trial on negligence claim, and otherwise affirmed judgment below.

Seventh Circuit

Eleventh Circuit Tag

Important Links