U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - Justia Case Law Summaries

Wang v. University of Pittsburgh

2026-07-07T10:00:11-08:00

An academic cardiologist published a peer-reviewed article questioning race-based affirmative action in medical education, expressing concerns that such practices might discriminate against some minority groups, violate the law, and harm the intended beneficiaries. After initial silence, the article drew criticism from his colleagues and superiors at both a public university and its affiliated private hospital system. He was demoted from his leadership role, barred from teaching, subjected to public denunciations, and his article was retracted by the journal following pressure from his employers. The fallout led to isolation at work and significant reputational harm. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania reviewed his lawsuit, which alleged defamation and retaliation under several civil-rights statutes. The court dismissed his defamation claims, finding the statements were either true or not made with actual malice, and rejected most retaliation claims on the pleadings or at summary judgment, reasoning he had not engaged in protected activity or failed to plausibly allege state action. Additionally, the court dismissed his First Amendment claims for lack of state action and vicarious liability, and found insufficient allegations regarding federal funds supporting employment for Title VI claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged defamation against five defendants, including two individuals, the university, the hospital system, and the professional association, finding sufficient allegations of actual malice and harm to reputation. The court also determined that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding retaliation under Title VII, the PHRA, § 1981, and Title VI (for the hospital system), and revived those claims. However, it affirmed dismissal of the First Amendment retaliation claim due to lack of state action. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wang v. University of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

Lynn v. Bank of New York Mellon

2026-07-06T09:00:11-08:00

The appellant, a Black man, worked at a large financial institution from 2019 to 2021. He initially received positive reviews and bonuses from his supervisor, who later expressed political opinions critical of the Black Lives Matter movement but encouraged open discussion. In early 2021, the supervisor suggested the appellant seek another director-level position, which the appellant pursued and obtained with the supervisor’s assistance. After transitioning to the new role, the appellant inserted a footnote in a presentation alleging the division was unsafe for Black employees, referencing his supervisor’s earlier comments. This was not reported to human resources directly but was discovered and investigated, with the claims found unsubstantiated. The appellant then experienced performance issues in his new team, was placed on a performance improvement plan, filed an EEOC charge, and ultimately had his position eliminated during a reorganization. His responsibilities were distributed among existing employees, and he was not replaced. The case was first reviewed by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The appellant sued the institution and its parent company, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under federal and New Jersey law. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, finding insufficient evidence for the discrimination and hostile work environment claims and determining that the employer’s reasons for termination were not pretextual. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the appeal de novo. It held that the appellant failed to make out a prima facie case of race discrimination regarding both his termination and alleged demotion, as he voluntarily left his prior position and was not replaced. The Court further held that while temporal proximity established a prima facie case of retaliation, the appellant failed to present evidence of pretext or retaliatory animus. The Court thus affirmed the District Court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendants. View "Lynn v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

USA v. Rosario

2026-07-01T09:00:13-08:00

A man with previous felony drug convictions sold drugs to an individual named Correa at a Pennsylvania gas station. Later that day, Correa was found dead in his car, with toxicology revealing fentanyl-laced heroin and cocaine in his system. An investigation uncovered that Correa had arranged the transaction with the man through text messages and Facebook Messenger, and security footage confirmed their meeting. The man admitted to supplying cocaine but denied selling heroin. A search warrant was obtained for the man’s Facebook records, leading to the discovery of extensive drug-related communications, including evidence of a gun-for-drugs exchange. A federal grand jury indicted the man on multiple counts: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute narcotics resulting in death or serious bodily injury, possession with intent to distribute drugs, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and conspiracy to possess a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. He was convicted on all counts by a jury. Before trial, he moved to suppress the Facebook evidence, arguing the search warrant was overbroad and lacked particularity, and requested a Franks hearing, alleging falsehoods in the warrant affidavit. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied these motions, admitted certain witness testimony, and imposed a mandatory life sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) based on his prior convictions and the resulting death. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the good faith exception shielded the Facebook evidence from suppression, that the evidence was sufficient to support all convictions (including firearm possession via gun-for-drugs trades), and that the evidentiary rulings were not erroneous. However, the Court vacated the life sentence, holding that the District Court erred by not applying the traditional categorical approach to determine whether the prior state drug convictions qualified as “felony drug offenses” under federal law, and remanded for resentencing. View "USA v. Rosario" on Justia Law

USA v. Aumiller

2026-07-01T09:00:12-08:00

Between 2011 and 2017, the Internal Revenue Service sought to collect unpaid taxes from an individual and his business. The individual was indicted on two counts of tax evasion. The indictments alleged that, among other acts, he attempted to evade the collection of taxes by using a bank account that was not disclosed to the IRS, and specifically by submitting financial disclosure forms that omitted these accounts when disclosure was required. The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictments, arguing that the government had not alleged or proven an affirmative act of evasion within the applicable six-year statute of limitations. The District Court denied these motions. At trial, the government presented evidence that the defendant had knowingly failed to disclose certain bank accounts on forms submitted to the IRS within the limitations period. After the government’s case, the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal was denied. The jury found him guilty on both counts. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s denials. The Third Circuit held that intentionally filing forms with the IRS that omitted required disclosure of bank accounts constitutes an affirmative act of tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201. The court found that the indictments, together with the bill of particulars, sufficiently identified this conduct within the statute of limitations. It also held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "USA v. Aumiller" on Justia Law

USA v. Craddock

2026-07-01T09:00:12-08:00

After being arrested following a slow-speed pursuit in November 2020, the defendant was found with a disassembled Glock pistol and ammunition. The firearm contained two serial numbers: one was fully legible on the slide, while the other, located on the pistol frame, was partially visible but mainly scratched off, rendering several characters illegible. As a convicted felon, the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and pleaded guilty. Prior to sentencing, the U.S. Probation Office recommended a four-level sentence enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which applies if any firearm involved had a serial number modified to be illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye. At the sentencing hearing, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found that certain characters of the serial number on the pistol frame were not legible, thus applying the four-level enhancement. The District Court ruled that the presence of a separate, legible serial number on the firearm’s slide was irrelevant to the enhancement’s application. The defendant appealed this decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. The appellate court concluded that the plain language of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) requires only that a firearm have at least one serial number rendered illegible or unrecognizable, regardless of whether another serial number on the same firearm remains legible. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the enhancement should not apply if the firearm retains any complete, legible serial number. The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court, holding that the enhancement applies so long as any serial number on the firearm has been modified to be illegible. View "USA v. Craddock" on Justia Law

USA v. Riddy

2026-07-01T09:00:12-08:00

DEA investigators received information indicating that an individual was distributing cocaine base with a co-defendant in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The individual often requested payments from customers via Cash App and either conducted drug transactions personally or sent the co-defendant to do so. Cash App records showed approximately $180,000 in payments. Agents arranged controlled purchases, during which the co-defendant drove the individual's vehicle for several transactions. After executing a search warrant at the individual's residence, agents seized cocaine, paraphernalia, a drug ledger, financial records, and cash. The individual was later charged in a federal superseding indictment with several drug-related counts and pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania reviewed the presentence report, which recommended a two-level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for being a “manager” or “supervisor” of criminal activity. This enhancement resulted in a guideline range of 120 to 135 months, subject to a statutory minimum sentence of ten years. Without the enhancement, the individual would have been eligible for a sentence below the statutory minimum under the safety valve provision. The individual objected, but the District Court relied on Sentencing Guidelines commentary and applied the enhancement, sentencing him to 120 months’ imprisonment. The appeal challenged only the District Court’s application of the leadership enhancement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Third Circuit held that the District Court erred by deferring to the Guidelines’ commentary without first determining whether the Guideline text was genuinely ambiguous as required by circuit precedent. However, since the terms “manager” and “supervisor” were not genuinely ambiguous, and the factual findings supported the enhancement, the error was harmless. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment of sentence. View "USA v. Riddy" on Justia Law

USA v. Williams

2026-06-30T09:00:12-08:00

The defendant was arrested after sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl and making and possessing child pornography, having coerced multiple minors into sending him explicit images and meeting him for sex. Law enforcement officers posed as one of the victims to apprehend him, and a grand jury indicted him on five federal charges, including traveling interstate to have sex with a minor, sexual exploitation of a child, coercion and enticement of a minor, and possession of child pornography. Following his arrest, the defendant repeatedly delayed proceedings, changed his mind about legal representation, and ultimately chose to represent himself at trial after several Faretta hearings, during which the District Court misinformed him about the maximum penalty on one count. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, after thorough Peppers colloquies, allowed the defendant to proceed pro se with standby counsel, despite the sentencing misinformation. During trial, the defendant behaved disruptively and withdrew his pro se status for closing arguments. The jury convicted him on all counts. Before sentencing, the government revealed the sentencing error, and the defendant moved for a new trial, claiming his waivers of counsel were neither knowing nor voluntary, and challenging the admission of certain evidence. The District Court denied the motion, finding the waivers valid based on the overall record, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court held that the defendant’s waivers of his right to counsel were both knowing and voluntary, even in light of the District Court’s error, because he was aware he faced a functional life sentence. It clarified that in cases where a defendant seeks to represent himself for improper purposes, courts may review the entire record to verify waiver validity. The court also rejected the evidentiary challenges to chat messages and evidence of other crimes. View "USA v. Williams" on Justia Law

Bracey v. Superintendent Rockview SCI

2026-06-26T09:00:11-08:00

In 1995, a man was convicted by a jury in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas for first-degree murder following the shooting death of another individual related to a drug deal. Two key prosecution witnesses, both facing pending charges themselves, testified against him in exchange for plea agreements. The prosecution did not disclose all pending charges against these witnesses, though defense counsel was able to impeach their credibility based on other known charges. Despite this, the jury convicted the defendant, who was sentenced to life imprisonment. He unsuccessfully challenged his conviction on direct appeal and through multiple post-conviction proceedings in state court. After eventually discovering the full extent of the witnesses' pending charges, the petitioner filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, asserting a Brady violation. The District Court denied the petition as untimely under the statute of limitations, and subsequent requests for a certificate of appealability were also denied. Following a significant change in Third Circuit law announced in Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the petitioner sought to reopen his federal habeas case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). After a remand for further analysis, the District Court again denied the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, finding that the factors for extraordinary relief were not met. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the denial, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard and weighing the Cox factors. The Court held that, although the materiality and diligence factors favored the petitioner, the remaining factors—likelihood of success, finality and comity, lack of actual innocence, and non-capital sentence—strongly disfavored relief. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. View "Bracey v. Superintendent Rockview SCI" on Justia Law

Steidle v. United States Liability Insurance Co

2026-06-24T09:00:12-08:00

The appellant was employed by an insurance company and struggled with mental health issues, including major depressive disorder and later posttraumatic stress disorder and anxiety. Over several years, he received annual salary increases and bonuses. In 2020, after transferring to a new team and informing his supervisor about his mental health struggles, he took FMLA leave for treatment. While he was on leave, his supervisor approved a significantly reduced bonus and salary increase compared to prior years. Upon returning to work, he received positive performance reviews and requested accommodations related to his disability. He was granted some accommodations and continued working remotely. In 2021, after requesting further accommodations, he received another reduced bonus and salary increase. Later, after extended medical leave and unsuccessful attempts to return with additional accommodations, his employment was terminated. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on all claims. It found that the appellant had not established a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation under the ADA and FMLA. Specifically, the District Court held that the reduced bonuses and salary increases did not constitute adverse employment actions and that there was no causal connection between the protected activities (requests for leave and accommodations) and the adverse actions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the summary judgment order. The court applied the Burlington Northern standard, holding that the less restrictive “materially adverse” standard for retaliation claims under Title VII also applies to ADA and FMLA retaliation claims. The court found that unusually suggestive temporal proximity between the appellant’s FMLA leave and his 2020 bonus established a prima facie case for retaliation, but that such proximity was lacking for the 2021 bonus. The Third Circuit vacated the summary judgment as to the 2020 bonus retaliation claims and remanded for the District Court to consider pretext, while affirming summary judgment as to the 2021 bonus retaliation claims. View "Steidle v. United States Liability Insurance Co" on Justia Law

Ahn v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co

2026-06-24T09:00:11-08:00

Dr. Jeffrey M. Ahn, an otolaryngologist practicing in New Jersey and New York, treated patients insured by Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, which provides ERISA-governed health plans. After submitting claims for approximately fifty treatments, Dr. Ahn received denial notices from Cigna, many of which stated his claims were rejected because he was not a licensed provider. Upon appeal, Cigna sometimes reversed or modified the denial reasons. Dr. Ahn contended that these statements were defamatory and filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court, alleging defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference. Cigna removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and sought dismissal or summary judgment, arguing ERISA preemption and a statute of limitations defense. Initially, the District Court deferred ruling on preemption, as it was unclear which claims related to ERISA plans. After discovery, Dr. Ahn withdrew two claims, leaving only defamation per se. Cigna again moved for summary judgment, submitting evidence that all relevant plans were governed by ERISA. Dr. Ahn presented no contrary evidence. The District Court found the plans were ERISA plans and held that Dr. Ahn’s defamation per se claim was preempted because it concerned statements made in explanation of benefits forms, which are part of ERISA plan administration. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The Third Circuit held that ERISA preempts a healthcare provider’s state-law defamation claim when the alleged defamatory statements appeared in explanation of benefits forms sent to beneficiaries of ERISA plans. The court reasoned that such communications are a central aspect of plan administration and that allowing state-law claims would undermine uniformity in ERISA administration. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cigna. View "Ahn v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co" on Justia Law

USA v. Dangleben

2026-06-24T06:00:26-08:00

Richardson Dangleben, Jr. was initially charged in Virgin Islands Superior Court with first-degree murder and using a firearm during a violent crime. While released on pretrial conditions, Dangleben was involved in a shootout with police, resulting in the death of Detective Phipps. Following these events, a federal grand jury indicted Dangleben on several charges, including using a firearm during a crime of violence resulting in death, making him eligible for the death penalty. The predicate crimes for these charges were all Virgin Islands territorial offenses. After indictment, the Federal Public Defender inquired about the government's intent to seek the death penalty. The U.S. Attorney’s Office indicated it would not recommend the death penalty, though the final decision rested with the Attorney General. By agreement of the parties, the District Court of the Virgin Islands set a deadline for the government to file any notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The government missed the deadline, later changing its position and seeking to pursue the death penalty after a change in federal policy. The District Court struck the government’s death penalty notice as untimely and, in a separate order, dismissed counts that relied on territorial offenses as predicates for federal firearm charges, concluding only federal crimes could serve as predicate offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed both rulings. It held that a district court has authority to set and enforce a deadline for the government to file its notice of intent to seek the death penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a), and affirmed the District Court’s striking of the government’s late notice. However, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling on predicate crimes, holding that Virgin Islands territorial offenses can serve as predicate “crimes of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and remanded with instructions to reinstate the dismissed counts. View "USA v. Dangleben" on Justia Law

Johnson v. Quest Diagnostics Inc

2026-06-22T09:00:11-08:00

Employees participating in a 401(k) plan offered by their employer, a clinical laboratory company, brought a class action alleging that the plan’s fiduciaries breached their duties under ERISA by retaining two particular investment options: the Fidelity Freedom Funds and the Invesco Global Real Estate Fund. The plaintiffs argued that these funds underperformed compared to alternatives, were riskier, and that the plan’s managers failed to remove them despite subpar performance. They also claimed that internal policy statements required the funds’ removal and that the plan’s managers failed in their duty to monitor investments and breached trust obligations. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially denied a motion to dismiss the case, allowing discovery to proceed. After discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that the plan’s fiduciaries had fulfilled their obligations by hiring investment advisors, regularly reviewing investment performance, seeking relevant training, and following up on concerns regarding the challenged funds. The court concluded there was no breach of fiduciary duty or related failures. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, considering all facts and inferences in favor of the plaintiffs. The Third Circuit held that ERISA’s fiduciary standard is process-oriented, not outcome-based. The Court found that the fiduciaries had used a prudent process—hiring advisors, critically assessing their recommendations, meeting with fund managers, and maintaining regular oversight—even if the investments did not always outperform alternatives. The Court further held that internal policy statements were nonbinding and that the fiduciaries did not abuse their discretion. Consequently, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. View "Johnson v. Quest Diagnostics Inc" on Justia Law

Asay v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations Inc

2026-06-18T09:00:13-08:00

A locomotive engineer had longstanding concerns about her employer’s train scheduling practices, believing they led to unsafe conditions by pressuring employees to cut corners. Over a two-year period, she reported these concerns to her union, federal and state agencies, and the Governor’s office. Following a fatal train crash, she raised the issue again at a safety meeting attended by Liberty Mutual Insurance and New Jersey Transit employees. The specifics of this meeting, including which company personnel attended or knew about her participation, remained unclear. After the safety meeting, the engineer committed two significant infractions: first, she operated a train at a speed well above the limit, resulting in suspension after a disciplinary hearing. Her suspension was upheld by internal review boards. Later, she ran a train through a stop signal, leading to her termination after another disciplinary process. The identities of those responsible for the disciplinary decisions were uncertain, and testimony indicated that the signatory on her termination notice was absent at the time. A review board subsequently upheld the termination. After exhausting administrative remedies, the engineer filed suit under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, alleging retaliation for her whistleblowing. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment for the employer, finding insufficient evidence of retaliation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the employee failed to provide evidence that any person involved in the decision to discipline or terminate her knew of her protected activity. The court clarified that, under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, a plaintiff must show knowledge of protected activity by an agent who influenced the adverse action. Because such evidence was lacking, the court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer. View "Asay v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations Inc" on Justia Law

City of Philadelphia v. DOI

2026-06-18T09:00:12-08:00

The dispute centers on the President’s House Exhibit in Independence National Historical Park, which commemorates the history of enslaved Africans who lived there during George Washington’s presidency. The City of Philadelphia and the National Park Service (NPS) had established the exhibit through a series of cooperative agreements, culminating in a 2009 amendment that transferred ownership and maintenance responsibility to NPS. In 2026, following an executive order, NPS unilaterally removed interpretive panels and video exhibits from the site without consulting the City, prompting the City to file a lawsuit seeking restoration of the materials. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed the City’s claims and granted a preliminary injunction, ordering NPS to restore the President’s House Site to its previous physical status and prohibiting further changes without mutual agreement. The District Court concluded that it had jurisdiction over four claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), found that the City had standing based on statutory and contractual rights to mutual agreement and consultation, and determined that NPS’s actions constituted final agency action subject to judicial review. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed the appeal by first confirming the City’s standing based on alleged contractual injury. However, the court determined that the APA did not permit review of Counts II through V because the NPS’s removal of exhibits was not “agency action” as defined by the APA, nor did it constitute “final agency action.” The court also clarified that statutory provisions requiring mutual agreement applied only to Independence Hall National Historic Site, not the entire park or the President’s House. Accordingly, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to dismiss Counts II through V for lack of jurisdiction. View "City of Philadelphia v. DOI" on Justia Law

USA v. Harry

2026-06-17T09:00:13-08:00

Two individuals were prosecuted for their roles in a violent drug-trafficking organization in the U.S. Virgin Islands. One defendant was identified as the leader, convicted by a jury of 22 counts including drug, firearm, and racketeering charges; the other, an armorer, was convicted of seven counts relating to racketeering and firearms. Their trial occurred in March 2022, shortly after the District Court resumed in-person proceedings following COVID-19 restrictions. Initially, all public spectators were required to observe the proceedings from an overflow room via audiovisual feed, rather than in the courtroom itself. After the first day, some spectators, including family members, were permitted into the courtroom, but for several days, court security personnel prevented the defendants’ mothers from entering, even when seats were available. Following their convictions, the defendants moved for a new trial in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, arguing that their Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated by these restrictions. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that some seating was always available on a first-come basis and that any interruptions in the audiovisual feed were brief. The District Court denied the motions, concluding that the public was not excluded from the trial. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, but applied plain error review due to the defendants’ failure to make timely objections. The Third Circuit held that there were errors: the initial exclusion of all public spectators and the subsequent exclusion of the defendants’ mothers were unjustified. However, the court also held that these errors did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings and therefore did not warrant reversal. The judgments of conviction were affirmed. View "USA v. Harry" on Justia Law

Justman v. Accenture LLP

2026-06-17T09:00:12-08:00

The appellant, Mark Justman, sought to recover accidental death life insurance benefits following the death of his wife, Karen Justman, who died from septic shock caused by a bacterial infection after eating raw oysters. At the time of her death, she was employed by Accenture LLP and was covered by both basic and optional accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) insurance through a group plan. Prudential Insurance Company of America served as the Claims Administrator in 2021, while Accenture was designated as the Plan Administrator. After Prudential denied Justman’s claim on the grounds that the death was due to illness rather than an accident, Justman exhausted Prudential’s administrative appeals process without success. Justman then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against both Prudential and Accenture, asserting wrongful denial of benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and breach of fiduciary duty for allegedly failing to provide required summary plan descriptions (SPDs). Prudential settled, leaving only Accenture as a defendant. The District Court dismissed Justman’s claims, finding insufficient factual allegations that Accenture controlled the benefits determination or failed to provide SPDs within statutory deadlines. The court allowed Justman to amend his complaint multiple times but found that further amendment would be futile and dismissed the case with prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s rulings. The Third Circuit held that a proper defendant in an ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claim is the entity with authority over benefits determinations, which in this case was Prudential, not Accenture. The court also concluded that Justman’s claims regarding failure to provide SPDs and breach of fiduciary duty were not plausibly pleaded. The Third Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the denial of leave to amend or reconsideration and affirmed the dismissal with prejudice. View "Justman v. Accenture LLP" on Justia Law

Williams v. Superintendent Rockview SCI

2026-06-15T09:00:11-08:00

After being convicted in 2007 of kidnapping, corruption of a minor, and various drug offenses, a Pennsylvania prisoner was sentenced to fifteen to thirty years in state prison. He argued that he deserved additional credit for time served, which led him through a series of challenges in both Pennsylvania and federal courts. The Pennsylvania Superior Court remanded his case for a hearing on the time-credit issue, resulting in a modified sentence from the Court of Common Pleas granting him three months and twelve days of additional credit. His appeal for further credit was denied, and subsequent collateral challenges, including a federal habeas petition contesting his convictions and sentence enhancement, were unsuccessful. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed his 2013 federal habeas petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition, finding that the revised sentence did not constitute a “new judgment” under Magwood v. Patterson. He did not appeal that decision, but later filed additional habeas petitions and applications for certificates of appealability, which were all denied. In 2022, nearly eight years after the dismissal, he moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen the prior judgment, arguing that later precedent (Lesko v. Secretary, Pa. Dep’t of Corr.) justified relief. The District Court denied the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The Court of Appeals held that a change in procedural law alone does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying reopening a final judgment absent additional equitable factors. Because the petitioner failed to present any facts showing extreme or unexpected hardship or other supporting circumstances, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. View "Williams v. Superintendent Rockview SCI" on Justia Law

Gelis v. BMW of North America LLC

2026-06-11T09:00:11-08:00

Several plaintiffs brought a class action against BMW of North America, alleging the company sold vehicles with defective timing chains. After partial dismissal of initial claims and additional discovery totaling approximately 12,000 pages, the parties reached a settlement resolving the merits of the dispute. However, they could not agree on attorneys’ fees, so a settlement agreement stipulated that class counsel would apply to the court for “reasonable attorneys’ fees” to be paid separately from class relief, with BMW not opposing fees up to $1.5 million and class counsel requesting up to $3.7 million. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey used the lodestar method to calculate fees, finding the hours and rates reasonable and applying a lodestar multiplier that resulted in a $3.7 million award. BMW appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit previously vacated the fee award, finding the record insufficient to support it and remanding for further proceedings. On remand, class counsel supplemented their billing records and again sought $3.7 million. The district court approved the hours and rates, applied a reduced multiplier, and awarded the same amount. BMW appealed again, challenging the use and calculation of the multiplier and the reasonableness of the hours. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that constraints imposed by the Supreme Court on lodestar multipliers in statutory fee-shifting cases, particularly Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, also apply to contractual fee-shifting arrangements governed by federal law. The court found the district court erred by applying a multiplier without considering Perdue’s “strong presumption” that the unenhanced lodestar is reasonable and by approving excessive hours without sufficient justification. The Third Circuit vacated the fee award and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gelis v. BMW of North America LLC" on Justia Law

Thomas v. City of Philadelphia

2026-06-09T09:00:12-08:00

Milton Thomas filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2004, listing the City of Philadelphia as a creditor for liens on several properties. Thomas used a lawful process to reduce (“cram down”) the value of the City’s claims and had a bankruptcy plan confirmed in 2005, after which a discharge order was issued in 2009. Despite receiving notice of the proceedings and participating in them by filing claims, the City later sought to collect on liens relating to two properties, the 1618 Property and the 1620 Property, which Thomas argued violated the discharge order. After the discharge, the City began collection actions in state court for these properties. Thomas sought relief in federal court, claiming the City’s actions violated the bankruptcy discharge. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially found for Thomas, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated that decision, instructing that only the Bankruptcy Court could address contempt allegations. On remand, the Bankruptcy Court declined to hold the City in contempt, relying on its earlier 2013 sua sponte ruling that the City had not received constitutionally adequate notice. The District Court affirmed this decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The Third Circuit held that the City had actual notice of the bankruptcy and discharge orders and that the 2013 Bankruptcy Court ruling did not provide a reasonable basis for the City’s subsequent conduct. The court found that civil contempt sanctions were warranted as to the 1618 Property, but not the 1620 Property, because Thomas had not shown he met his payment obligations for the latter. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings to determine damages for the 1618 Property. View "Thomas v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Secretary United States Department of Labor v. Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services LLC

2026-06-03T09:00:12-08:00

Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services LLC acquired numerous healthcare facilities in Pennsylvania beginning in 2014. The United States Department of Labor investigated these facilities for wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Department’s Secretary filed suit in 2018 on behalf of nearly 6,000 employees, alleging that Comprehensive failed to maintain accurate records and did not properly compensate employees for all hours worked, including overtime and time worked during meal breaks. Evidence at trial revealed systemic errors in Comprehensive’s payroll and recordkeeping systems, leading to employees being paid for scheduled rather than actual hours, unpaid work during meal breaks, and improper calculation of overtime rates. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held a bench trial and found in favor of the Secretary. The District Court found the Secretary’s witnesses credible and Comprehensive’s witnesses lacking credibility. It concluded that Comprehensive had violated the FLSA by failing to keep accurate records, not compensating for all hours worked, miscalculating overtime, and misclassifying employees as exempt. The court awarded $35,804,438.20 in damages, which included compensation for “overtime gap time”—hours worked in a week beyond 40 for which regular pay was not provided. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that claims for “overtime gap time” are not cognizable under the FLSA, as the statute only requires payment of minimum wages and overtime, and does not cover unpaid non-overtime hours in overtime weeks. The court reversed the District Court’s award on that ground. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s findings regarding Comprehensive’s FLSA violations and its application of the burden of proof, finding no clear error. However, it vacated and remanded the exemption analysis for further proceedings, instructing the District Court to apply current legal standards. View "Secretary United States Department of Labor v. Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services LLC" on Justia Law

USA v. Dangleben

2026-06-01T09:00:39-08:00

The case centers on a defendant who was initially charged in the Virgin Islands Superior Court with first-degree murder and a firearm offense, and released pretrial with a condition not to possess weapons. Several months later, the defendant became involved in a shootout with police, resulting in the death of a detective. Upon investigation, authorities found a firearm, ammunition, and drugs in his vehicle. A federal grand jury subsequently indicted the defendant on charges including using a firearm during a crime of violence resulting in death, which made him eligible for the federal death penalty. The predicate crimes underlying these charges were all violations of Virgin Islands territorial law. After indictment, the prosecution indicated it would not recommend the death penalty but acknowledged that only the Attorney General could make the final decision. At the defendant’s request, and with the government’s agreement, the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands set a deadline for the government to provide notice if it intended to seek the death penalty. The government missed this deadline but ultimately filed a notice to seek the death penalty over a year later, after a change in federal policy. The District Court struck the notice as untimely and dismissed several counts relying on territorial offenses as predicate crimes of violence under federal firearm law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. It held that a district court has the authority to set and enforce deadlines for the government to provide notice of intent to seek the death penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a), and found no abuse of discretion in enforcing the deadline set. The court also held that Virgin Islands territorial offenses qualify as predicate crimes of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The court affirmed the order striking the death penalty notice, but reversed and remanded the dismissal of counts based on territorial predicates. View "USA v. Dangleben" on Justia Law

Laureano v. Attorney General

2026-05-29T09:00:38-08:00

A citizen of the Dominican Republic entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1994. She suffered abuse from her partner, who later involved her in a drug-trafficking scheme without her consent. In 2007, she pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, served a prison sentence, and was ordered removed from the United States in 2008. She unlawfully reentered the country in 2009 and remained until her 2023 arrest. Following the reinstatement of her prior removal order, she applied for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), fearing harm from her former partner if returned to the Dominican Republic. An Immigration Judge denied her applications, finding her conviction was a presumptive “particularly serious crime” (PSC) under the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of Y-L-, and that she had not rebutted the presumption. The judge also rejected her CAT claim, concluding she failed to establish it was more likely than not she would face torture with government acquiescence upon return. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted the Immigration Judge’s decision, and dismissed her appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction over both the CAT and withholding claims, even though the petitioner did not challenge the underlying removal order and the government did not contest the timeliness of the petition. The court unanimously denied her petition for review of the CAT claim, holding that the BIA did not err in denying relief. However, the panel was evenly divided on the statutory withholding claim: one judge would have denied the petition, one would have granted and remanded, and one would have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, the denial of statutory withholding was left intact by an equally divided court. View "Laureano v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

SLT Imports Inc v. SAR Transport Systems Pvt Ltd

2026-05-28T09:00:11-08:00

SLT Imports, a New Jersey company, agreed to finance the importation of goods for Krishna Food Corp. from Bikaji Foods International in India, using SAR Transport Systems as the maritime carrier. Under the arrangement, Krishna would pay SAR by drawing from SLT’s bank facility, and SAR was required to release cargo only upon presentation of an endorsed bill of lading (BOL). SLT later discovered that SAR had delivered goods to Krishna without receiving endorsed BOLs, instead accepting letters of indemnity. SLT alleged that SAR breached the contract and committed fraud in the execution by issuing BOLs with terms it did not intend to honor. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted SAR’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing SLT’s breach-of-contract claim as waived and time-barred under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and rejecting SLT’s fraud-in-the-execution claim. The District Court found that SLT failed to allege facts establishing fraud in the execution, and that even if it had, the claim was barred by COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations. The Court also held that the deviation doctrine and equitable estoppel did not apply. SLT’s motion for reconsideration was denied. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. It held that SLT did not adequately plead fraud in the execution, as the allegations amounted to breach of contract rather than fraud. The Third Circuit further concluded that SLT’s claim was time-barred by COGSA’s one-year limitation period and that neither the deviation doctrine nor equitable estoppel could circumvent this bar. The Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court, including the denial of leave to amend and the denial of reconsideration. View "SLT Imports Inc v. SAR Transport Systems Pvt Ltd" on Justia Law

USA v. Girard

2026-05-26T09:00:11-08:00

This case concerns two defendants, Paul Girard and Kareem Harry, who were tried and convicted in the U.S. Virgin Islands for multiple drug, firearm, and racketeering offenses connected to a violent criminal enterprise. Their trial took place in March 2022, shortly after COVID-19 restrictions on in-person court proceedings were partially lifted. On the first day of trial, public access to the courtroom was restricted, and spectators—including the defendants’ mothers—were directed to an overflow room with an audiovisual feed. Although the court later allowed some spectators into the courtroom, federal marshals continued to prevent the defendants’ mothers from entering for several days, even when seats were available. Following their convictions, Girard and Harry moved for a new trial in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, arguing that these restrictions violated their Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The District Court held a hearing but ultimately found that public access was provided through the overflow room and that any interruptions in the audiovisual feed were brief. The court denied the motions for a new trial, concluding that the public was not excluded from the proceedings. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case for plain error due to the lack of adequate contemporaneous objections during trial. The Third Circuit found that the defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the courtroom was closed to all spectators on the first day and when their mothers were excluded on subsequent days without justification. However, the court held that these errors did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. The court also rejected Harry’s claims regarding his rights to compulsory process and due process. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction. View "USA v. Girard" on Justia Law

In re Whittaker, Clark & Daniels Inc

2026-05-19T09:00:14-08:00

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. and three affiliates, with a history of manufacturing, storing, and distributing asbestos-containing talc, faced thousands of personal injury and environmental claims. After a $29 million verdict against Whittaker in South Carolina, a state court there appointed a receiver to administer Whittaker’s assets. Whittaker’s board, without consulting the receiver, authorized and filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. The Debtors’ estates were largely depleted by a 2004 asset sale to Brenntag, which expressly excluded liability for pre-sale asbestos and environmental claims. The Debtors, now essentially shells, sought to settle successor liability claims against Brenntag for $535 million, but some talc claimants had already asserted such claims against Brenntag in state courts. The South Carolina receiver and the Official Committee of Talc Claimants challenged the bankruptcy filing’s validity, arguing that only the receiver could authorize such a filing under the South Carolina court's order. The receiver’s motion to dismiss the bankruptcy petition as unauthorized was denied by the Bankruptcy Court, which found the South Carolina order did not divest Whittaker’s board of its authority. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed. In parallel, the Committee contested whether certain “product-line” successor liability claims belonged to the Debtors’ estates or to individual creditors. The Bankruptcy Court, referencing Third Circuit precedent, held that such claims were property of the bankruptcy estates. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed both lower court decisions. It held that Whittaker’s Chapter 11 filing was valid, as the South Carolina court’s receivership order did not displace the board’s authority under New Jersey law, which governs corporate internal affairs. The court further held that successor liability claims based on product-line theory, even if nominally assertable by creditors outside bankruptcy, are property of the bankruptcy estate when they address a general injury to the debtor that results in secondary harm to all creditors. Accordingly, the judgments below were affirmed. View "In re Whittaker, Clark & Daniels Inc" on Justia Law

USA v. Evans

2026-05-19T09:00:13-08:00

A man checked into a hotel room in New Jersey in April 2021 and later moved to a larger room, turning in his key for the first room. After the initial room was cleaned, hotel staff discovered two handguns and letters with distinctive handwriting in the room’s safe. Police, notified by the hotel manager, linked the man to the room and discovered he had an outstanding arrest warrant. After a standoff, police arrested the man in his new hotel room. A search warrant was obtained and, upon execution, police found large quantities of various drugs, drug packaging materials, cash, and additional evidence hidden above the room’s ceiling tiles, including drug trafficking paraphernalia and letters matching those previously found. A federal grand jury indicted the man for being a felon in possession of firearms, possessing fentanyl and methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the hotel room, arguing the search exceeded the warrant’s scope. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the motion, finding probable cause supported the warrant and, alternatively, the good-faith exception applied. At trial, the court allowed a detective to give lay opinion testimony about drug trafficking based on his experience. The jury found the defendant guilty on all charges, and he was sentenced to 192 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed three claims: that the search of the ceiling was improper, that improper lay opinion testimony was admitted, and that the court erred in denying a spoliation instruction related to missing body camera footage. The Third Circuit held the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, the admission of some improper lay opinion testimony was harmless given overwhelming evidence, and the denial of a spoliation instruction was not an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "USA v. Evans" on Justia Law

Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.P.A

2026-05-18T09:00:12-08:00

A Chilean company contracted with an Italian construction firm to design and build a hospital in Santiago, Chile, with disputes to be resolved by arbitration in Chile. The Italian firm later underwent a restructuring proceeding in Italy, during which it spun off its operating business and merged into another Italian company, Webuild S.p.A., which acquired most of its assets. After the contract was terminated due to project delays, arbitration in Chile resulted in an award in favor of the Chilean company and against the original Italian firm. The Chilean courts reduced but otherwise affirmed the arbitral award, and further appeal was denied. Seeking to enforce the arbitral award in the United States, the Chilean company brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Webuild, claiming it was the successor in interest to the award debtor. The company asked the District Court to assert quasi in rem jurisdiction by attaching Webuild’s shares in a Delaware subsidiary. The District Court granted Webuild’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that there were insufficient contacts between the forum, Webuild, and the underlying controversy. The District Court also held that, even if an exception to the minimum contacts requirement applied, it would not permit jurisdiction here because no court had yet determined that Webuild was indeed liable for the arbitral debt. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Shaffer v. Heitner, a court may exercise traditional quasi in rem jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award in an action to collect on an already adjudicated debt, without requiring minimum contacts. The appellate court vacated the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for a determination of whether Webuild is the successor in interest to the original award debtor. View "Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.P.A" on Justia Law

McGoveran v. Amazon Web Services Inc

2026-05-12T09:00:11-08:00

A group of Illinois residents called John Hancock to discuss their retirement accounts. John Hancock routed these calls through Amazon Connect, a service provided by Amazon Web Services. During these calls, Pindrop Security, using its cloud-based biometric technology, authenticated the callers by analyzing their voiceprints. The plaintiffs alleged that Amazon and Pindrop collected their biometric information without the required consent, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The plaintiffs first brought their claims against Amazon in Illinois state court, but after Amazon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, that court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs then filed a similar complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, adding Pindrop as a defendant. The District of Delaware initially dismissed the case on extraterritoriality grounds, but after amended complaints, dismissed all claims against Pindrop based on BIPA’s financial-institution exemption and most claims against Amazon, except the claim under Section 15(b) for collecting biometric data without written consent. The court later granted Amazon judgment on the pleadings as to a Section 15(d) claim and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Amazon, closing the case. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motions related to discovery extensions and voluntary dismissal of certain plaintiffs. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court in all respects. The Third Circuit held that Pindrop was exempt from BIPA under the financial-institution exemption, that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery extensions or the voluntary dismissal motion, and that the extraterritoriality doctrine barred the plaintiffs’ BIPA claims against Amazon because the relevant conduct did not occur primarily and substantially in Illinois. The court also affirmed the judgment on the pleadings for the Section 15(d) claim. View "McGoveran v. Amazon Web Services Inc" on Justia Law

In Re: BPS Direct, LLC

2026-05-11T09:00:11-08:00

Several individuals sued two outdoor retailers, alleging that the retailers used third-party “Session Replay Code” on their websites to record users’ activities, including keystrokes, clicks, and text entries, without user consent. This code operated invisibly to typical users and transmitted the recorded data to outside providers, which could aggregate and store the information, including potentially sensitive details. Among the plaintiffs, two made purchases on the websites and entered personal information such as names, addresses, and complete credit or debit card numbers; the other six only browsed and did not provide identifying data. The lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That court dismissed the complaint, ruling that none of the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged an “injury in fact” necessary for Article III standing. The District Court reasoned that only the sharing of highly sensitive information, like medical or financial data, would establish standing, and it dismissed with prejudice the claims of the six plaintiffs who did not make purchases (and thus did not provide sensitive data). As for the two plaintiffs who did make purchases, the court dismissed their claims without prejudice, allowing them to amend if they could allege sharing of highly sensitive information. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the two purchasing plaintiffs (Cornell and Montecalvo) alleged an injury analogous to the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, since their complete credit or debit card numbers were surreptitiously recorded and transmitted. Thus, the Third Circuit reversed the dismissal as to those two plaintiffs and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed (as modified to be without prejudice) the dismissal of the claims brought by the other six plaintiffs, holding that their allegations did not establish a concrete injury sufficient for standing. View "In Re: BPS Direct, LLC" on Justia Law

USA v. Newkirk

2026-05-01T09:00:11-08:00

Steven Newkirk was investigated for drug-related activities, leading law enforcement to obtain a warrant to search his apartment. During the search, officers found a loaded, stolen firearm, ammunition, drug paraphernalia, heroin, and significant amounts of marijuana. Newkirk, a convicted felon with a history of drug-distribution offenses, was initially detained by New Jersey authorities and later charged federally with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He spent approximately two weeks in state custody, then was released on bond with conditions that were gradually relaxed over several years. During his pretrial release, Newkirk had repeated violations, including multiple positive drug tests. Despite these issues, Newkirk engaged in community work, notably founding a nonprofit aimed at reducing gang violence. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey presided over Newkirk’s guilty plea to the firearm charge. At sentencing, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 92 to 115 months' imprisonment. Newkirk requested probation or, alternatively, a significantly reduced sentence. The District Court, highlighting his community service and personal development, sentenced him to time served—approximately two weeks. The Government objected, arguing the sentence was unreasonably low, and appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. It found that the District Court’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Procedurally, the sentencing court failed to sufficiently address the risk of unwarranted sentencing disparities and the need for general deterrence, and did not adequately justify the extraordinary downward variance. Substantively, the court held that no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed such a short sentence given the offense and Newkirk’s history. The Third Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, instructing the District Court to give serious consideration to a substantially longer sentence. View "USA v. Newkirk" on Justia Law

Kendig v. Stolar

2026-04-28T09:00:48-08:00

Corey Kendig was involved in a fatal altercation outside a Pennsylvania tavern in October 2020. After being confronted and physically attacked by Jeremy Jones and his friends, Kendig, while in a chokehold on the ground, discharged his firearm and fatally shot Jones. Kendig was immediately taken into custody, treated for his injuries, and subsequently charged by Trooper Nicholas Stolar with criminal homicide, aggravated assault, and recklessly endangering another person. At trial, Kendig was acquitted of all charges by a jury. Following his acquittal, Kendig brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Trooper Stolar and the Pennsylvania State Police, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, arguing that he was arrested and charged without probable cause in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court granted summary judgment for Stolar, finding that Stolar was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right by omitting facts relevant to Kendig’s self-defense from the affidavit of probable cause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, while facts known to an officer supporting an affirmative defense like self-defense may be exculpatory and relevant to probable cause for certain offenses, the law was not clearly established at the time of Kendig’s arrest that an officer was constitutionally required to include such facts in a probable cause affidavit. Therefore, Stolar was entitled to qualified immunity. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Stolar. View "Kendig v. Stolar" on Justia Law

USA v. Lyons

2026-04-28T09:00:48-08:00

Aaron Lyons, after being caught with a gun at age eighteen on a Pittsburgh playground, pleaded guilty to possessing an offensive weapon under Pennsylvania law and was sentenced to probation. Following completion of his probation, he was again found with a firearm and subsequently pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court explained to Lyons that his prior conviction made it unlawful for him to possess a gun and that the federal offense carried significant penalties. At the time, prevailing case law did not require the government to prove that Lyons knew of his status as someone previously convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year. After Lyons’s federal conviction, the Supreme Court in Rehaif v. United States clarified that, for a conviction under the relevant statute, the government must prove the defendant knew of his felony status. Lyons filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, arguing his guilty plea was unknowing since he was not told of the knowledge-of-status element. The District Court dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that Lyons had procedurally defaulted his claim by not raising it earlier, and that he failed to show actual innocence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the appeal and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The court held that Lyons’s Rehaif-based argument was not novel enough to excuse procedural default, as the underlying legal theory was reasonably available before Rehaif was decided. Furthermore, the appellate court found the record conclusively established that Lyons knew his status, making an evidentiary hearing unnecessary. The denial of the § 2255 motion was thus affirmed. View "USA v. Lyons" on Justia Law

In re: Whittaker Clark & Daniels

2026-04-27T09:00:10-08:00

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. and three affiliates, historically involved in the manufacture and distribution of asbestos-containing talc, faced thousands of personal injury and environmental claims. Over the years, the companies divested their operating assets, notably selling them to Brenntag North America in 2004 while expressly excluding pre-sale asbestos and environmental liabilities. As liabilities mounted, one plaintiff obtained a large jury verdict in South Carolina and successfully moved to put Whittaker into receivership, with a receiver appointed to administer its assets. Following the South Carolina receivership, Whittaker's board authorized a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey without consulting the receiver. The receiver moved to dismiss the bankruptcy, arguing that under the receivership order, only he had authority to file such a petition. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, finding that the receivership order did not displace the board’s authority. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed this ruling. While bankruptcy proceedings moved forward, the Debtors negotiated a $535 million settlement with Brenntag to resolve successor liability claims. However, the Official Committee of Talc Claimants argued that certain product-line successor liability claims belonged exclusively to talc creditors and not to the bankruptcy estate. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed two central issues. First, it held that the propriety of Whittaker’s bankruptcy petition did not affect the bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction and that, under New Jersey law, the board retained authority to file for bankruptcy because the South Carolina receiver had not obtained recognition or ancillary receivership in New Jersey. Second, the court held that product-line successor liability claims, like other derivative claims based on injury to the debtor and available to all creditors, are property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the lower courts’ judgments. View "In re: Whittaker Clark & Daniels" on Justia Law

Wexler v. Hawkins

2026-04-22T09:00:12-08:00

In June 2019, a confrontation occurred between a Philadelphia Police Department officer and a civilian near a parade route. The officer told the civilian, who was walking her bike, she could not proceed in a certain direction. An altercation followed, during which the officer used a choke hold and both parties sustained minor injuries. The civilian requested medical assistance and the officer’s identification, after which the officer escalated the charges against her. Based on the officer’s account, a detective recommended multiple criminal charges, including aggravated assault. The civilian was detained overnight, but charges were later dismissed. At trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff brought federal and state claims against the involved officers. The jury found for the plaintiff on all counts, awarding $6,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages—split evenly between the two defendants. The District Court reduced the punitive damages to $250,000 for each defendant, otherwise denying post-trial motions, and awarded attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the denial of the detective’s motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. The Third Circuit held that the detective had probable cause to recommend charges based on the information he had at the time, entitling him to judgment as a matter of law on the false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims. Regarding punitive damages, the court found the $250,000 award against the officer constitutionally excessive under Supreme Court due-process standards and reduced it to $12,000. The court reversed the judgment against the detective, vacated the judgment against the officer as to punitive damages, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion, including reconsideration of attorneys’ fees. View "Wexler v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Johnson & Johnson v. Samsung Bioepis Co Ltd

2026-04-14T09:00:13-08:00

The case involves a dispute between two biopharmaceutical companies over the distribution of a biosimilar drug following the expiration of a key patent. After Janssen’s patent for the composition of its biologic drug expired, Samsung sought to introduce its biosimilar product. Janssen and Samsung had previously settled related patent litigation through an agreement that granted Samsung a limited license to enter the market at a set date and restricted Samsung’s ability to sublicense, except to certain commercialization partners. Samsung subsequently entered into agreements with both Sandoz and Quallent, a subsidiary of the Cigna Group, allowing Quallent to distribute the biosimilar under its own label. Janssen argued that the sublicense to Quallent violated the settlement agreement and would cause it irreparable harm by altering market dynamics, reducing its market share and negotiation leverage, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Samsung from supplying Quallent during the litigation. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Janssen’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that while Janssen was likely to succeed on the merits of its breach-of-contract claim, it had not demonstrated irreparable harm because any injury could be measured and compensated by monetary damages. The court credited Samsung’s expert's view that harm to Janssen would be quantifiable, did not find persuasive evidence of brand loyalty or reputational harm, and concluded that Janssen’s asserted loss of negotiation leverage was too speculative. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed. The Court held that loss of market share in a complex market does not categorically constitute irreparable harm in contract cases, and that mere difficulty in calculating damages does not meet the threshold for irreparable harm. The Court concluded that Janssen had not shown the requisite irreparable harm to justify preliminary injunctive relief. View "Johnson & Johnson v. Samsung Bioepis Co Ltd" on Justia Law

American Society for Testing & Materials v. UPCODES Inc

2026-04-07T10:00:57-08:00

A non-profit organization that develops and sells technical standards for use in industry brought suit against a for-profit company that operates an online library of building codes. The for-profit company published on its website the full text of several copyrighted standards developed by the non-profit, which had been incorporated by reference into the International Building Code. This building code, in turn, was adopted as law by the City of Philadelphia and other jurisdictions. The for-profit company made these incorporated standards freely available, though it also sold premium subscriptions for enhanced features. The non-profit derived significant revenue from licensing and selling its standards, including those incorporated into law, and did not authorize the copying. The case was first heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After limited discovery and a hearing, the District Court denied the non-profit’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the for-profit company was likely to succeed on its fair use defense. The District Court found that the company’s publication of the standards for the purpose of public access to the law was transformative, even though the use was commercial in part, and that the standards, as incorporated into law, were primarily factual in nature. The District Court also found that copying the entire standards was reasonable because the law incorporated those standards in full, and that the effect on the market for the standards was at best equivocal. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. The Third Circuit held that the for-profit company is likely to succeed on the merits of its fair use defense, as three of the four statutory fair use factors favored fair use and the fourth was equivocal. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "American Society for Testing & Materials v. UPCODES Inc" on Justia Law

Kalshiex LLC v. Flaherty

2026-04-06T10:00:36-08:00

KalshiEX LLC operates a federally licensed designated contract market (DCM) that allows users to trade event contracts, including those based on sports outcomes. In late 2024, after Kalshi began offering sports-related event contracts similar to those offered by a competitor, New Jersey issued a cease-and-desist letter. The state asserted that Kalshi’s activities violated the New Jersey Constitution and state gambling laws, particularly regarding betting on collegiate sports, and threatened legal action with significant penalties if Kalshi continued its operations within New Jersey. In response, Kalshi initiated proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of New Jersey’s gambling laws against its federally regulated contracts. The District Court granted the injunction, finding that Kalshi had a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the public interest favored enjoining enforcement of potentially preempted state law. New Jersey appealed this decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo, and the decision to grant the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The appellate court held that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction over swaps, including sports-related event contracts traded on CFTC-licensed DCMs. Both field and conflict preemption principles bar New Jersey from enforcing its gambling laws against these contracts. The court concluded that Kalshi demonstrated a likelihood of success on the preemption claim, irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and that the equities and public interest favored injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the preliminary injunction. View "Kalshiex LLC v. Flaherty" on Justia Law

USA v. Miller

2026-04-03T10:00:54-08:00

Between April 2020 and September 2021, the defendant orchestrated a scheme to defraud federal relief programs, including the Paycheck Protection Program, Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, leading to losses exceeding $2 million. He submitted multiple fraudulent loan applications using his own identity, corporate entities, his wife’s and neighbor’s information, and the personal information of at least thirteen other family members and associates. These individuals provided their details to facilitate the fraud and, upon receiving illicit funds, paid kickbacks to the defendant. The defendant’s wife was found to have gone beyond simply providing her information, including contacting a lender and fleeing with the defendant to avoid law enforcement. His neighbor also played a more active role and later pleaded guilty to wire fraud. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania accepted the defendant’s guilty plea to bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and unlawful monetary transactions. At sentencing, the District Court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), finding that the scheme was “otherwise extensive,” and included at least three “participants” (the defendant, his wife, and his neighbor), plus thirteen non-participants. The court overruled the defendant’s objections, adopted the Presentence Investigation Report, and imposed a 149-month sentence. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed whether the District Court correctly applied the four-level enhancement, specifically whether the wife and neighbor qualified as “participants.” The appellate court held that the phrase “otherwise extensive” in the guideline is ambiguous, and that the District Court’s reliance on the commentary and prior precedent was ultimately appropriate. The Third Circuit found any legal error by the District Court was harmless and affirmed the sentence, holding that the enhancement was properly applied under the correct legal standard. View "USA v. Miller" on Justia Law

DiFraia v. Ransom

2026-03-31T10:00:56-08:00

A Pennsylvania state prisoner with a history of opioid addiction participated in a prison Medication Assisted Treatment program, receiving Suboxone to help control his cravings. After prison officials twice accused him of possessing contraband and diverting his medication to other prisoners, he was removed from the treatment program. Instead of abruptly ending his medication, a prison doctor tapered his doses over a week to reduce withdrawal symptoms. The prisoner later suffered withdrawal effects and mental health challenges but was not reinstated in the program despite his requests. He claimed the diversion finding was unfair but did not allege personal animus or pretext by the officials involved. He filed a pro se lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against various prison officials and a doctor, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and a state-law negligence claim. The District Court dismissed all claims, finding the federal claims inadequately pleaded and the state-law claim procedurally improper for lack of a certificate of merit under Pennsylvania law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim, holding that the complaint failed to allege deliberate indifference to medical needs as required by precedent; the officials’ actions were judged to be good-faith medical decisions, not constitutionally blameworthy conduct. The court also affirmed dismissal of the ADA claim, finding no plausible allegation that the prisoner was excluded from treatment “by reason of” his disability, but rather for diversion of medication. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the state-law negligence claim, as recent Supreme Court precedent abrogated the procedural requirement relied upon by the District Court, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "DiFraia v. Ransom" on Justia Law

Cardenas v. Attorney General United States of America

2026-03-31T10:00:56-08:00

A citizen of the Dominican Republic entered the United States without authorization as a child and lived with his mother, brother, and stepfather. The stepfather, who was not an authorized resident at the time, severely abused both the petitioner and his mother. After enduring years of abuse, the petitioner left home as a teenager but continued to support his mother, who later developed significant mental health issues linked to her trauma. The stepfather eventually gained lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and later threatened the petitioner again. The petitioner was charged with removability for lacking valid entry documents. He conceded removability but sought relief through two forms of cancellation: one, a special rule for individuals abused by a parent who is or was an LPR or citizen; the other, cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents based on hardship to a qualifying relative. The Immigration Judge denied both applications, finding the petitioner ineligible for special rule cancellation because the stepfather was not an LPR at the time of the abuse, and finding insufficient evidence of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the mother to grant cancellation of removal. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Immigration Judge, agreeing that the abuser had to be an LPR at the time of the abuse and that the hardship to the mother did not meet the statutory threshold. The petitioner then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit held that the special rule for cancellation does not require the abuser to have been an LPR at the time of the abuse; it is sufficient if the abuser is or was an LPR at any time before relief is adjudicated. The court thus granted the petition on this claim and remanded for further proceedings. However, it denied the petition regarding cancellation of removal, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion on hardship. View "Cardenas v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

McCarthy v. DEA

2026-03-27T10:00:55-08:00

An attorney representing a party before a federal appellate court submitted two briefs containing summaries of prior administrative agency decisions. These summaries were provided by a non-attorney, who had used artificial intelligence (AI) to generate them. The attorney made minor edits but did not verify the existence or accuracy of the cited authorities before filing the briefs. Seven of the eight cited authorities were inaccurately described, and one did not exist. The government identified these issues in its response, but even after reading the government’s brief and suspecting that AI had been used, the attorney did not check the citations or correct the record. He characterized the errors as immaterial in a reply brief, again without verification. Only after the court ordered him to provide copies of the cited decisions did the attorney confirm the inaccuracies and the nonexistence of one adjudication. Following the discovery of these misrepresentations, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered the attorney to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. In response, the attorney admitted to his failures, demonstrated contrition, and described corrective actions taken. He requested and received a hearing regarding potential sanctions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the attorney violated Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, which requires competent representation, by failing to thoroughly verify citations and relying on unverified, AI-generated summaries. The court found that while the attorney’s conduct did not rise to a knowing violation of the duty of candor under Rule 3.3, his overall lack of diligence warranted discipline. The court imposed a public reprimand, with notice to other courts and disciplinary authorities, but did not impose monetary sanctions, citing mitigating factors including the novelty of AI issues and the attorney’s post-hearing candor. View "McCarthy v. DEA" on Justia Law

USA v. Anderson

2026-03-26T10:00:55-08:00

Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at a residence where a firearm was discovered in a bag containing the defendant’s identification and two loaded magazines. The defendant was present in the bedroom with the bag and was on parole for a prior state offense. DNA swabs taken from the firearm, along with a sample from the defendant, were analyzed by the Pennsylvania State Police Crime Laboratory, which identified multiple DNA contributors but could not conclusively match the DNA to the defendant. The DNA evidence was then submitted to a private company using TrueAllele probabilistic genotyping software, which calculated an extremely high likelihood ratio indicating the DNA was much more likely to include the defendant as a contributor. The defendant moved to exclude the TrueAllele evidence in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing it was unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. After a two-day Daubert hearing featuring expert testimony from both sides, the District Court found that the government met its burden to demonstrate the reliability of TrueAllele and denied the motion to exclude. The District Court also rejected the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty, preserving his right to appeal these rulings, and was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment, consecutive to an anticipated state sentence. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s Daubert ruling for abuse of discretion and its Second Amendment analysis de novo. The Third Circuit held that TrueAllele’s methodology was sufficiently reliable for admissibility, finding that it satisfied factors such as testability, low error rates, presence of governing standards, peer review, and general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. The Court also affirmed the District Court’s rejection of the defendant’s constitutional and sentencing challenges, and the judgment was affirmed. View "USA v. Anderson" on Justia Law

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 29 v. Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp

2026-03-23T10:00:38-08:00

Energy Harbor Nuclear Corporation operated a power plant in Pennsylvania, where its employees were represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 29. After a 2021 dispute over health care benefit contributions, an arbitrator found that Energy Harbor had underpaid and ordered it to make additional contributions for 2021. Later, the parties entered into a new collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) on October 1, 2021, which included a broad arbitration clause and a merger clause voiding prior agreements not incorporated into the new CBA. When the union later alleged that Energy Harbor similarly underpaid contributions for 2022, it filed a grievance, contending that Energy Harbor failed to adjust 2022 contributions as required by the prior arbitration award. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania reviewed the matter after the union sought to compel arbitration. The District Court, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation, held that the broad arbitration clause in the new CBA covered the dispute regarding the 2022 contributions. The court reasoned that because the grievance referenced the contribution-increase provision of the CBA, the dispute was subject to arbitration, and found no evidence that the parties intended to exclude such claims from arbitration. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. The Third Circuit held that, although the arbitration clause was broad, the union’s grievance regarding 2022 contributions did not arise under the new CBA but instead relied on the prior arbitration award, which was not incorporated into the new agreement. The court concluded that the dispute had “nothing to do with” the rights under the CBA because there was no evidence of a required increase in Energy Harbor’s health care plan costs from 2021 to 2022. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment for Energy Harbor. View "International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 29 v. Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp" on Justia Law

USA v. Lyttle

2026-03-16T10:00:13-08:00

A resident of New York, originally from Jamaica, ran a fraudulent scheme with several family members. The operation targeted elderly Americans by falsely informing them they had won a Publishers Clearing House lottery, but required them to pay taxes or fees in advance to claim their prizes. Victims were instructed to send cash, wire money, or ship car parts to the group’s businesses in New York, which were then used to launder the proceeds through various bank accounts and entities in the United States and Jamaica. Following an investigation initiated by a victim’s family, the United States Postal Inspection Service uncovered the network. Multiple individuals, including the defendant, his ex-wife, his son, and a former partner, were indicted. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania held a jury trial, resulting in convictions on charges including conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, transportation of fraudulently obtained goods, and conspiracy to launder money. The District Court sentenced the defendant to 97 months’ imprisonment and ordered restitution, also applying a sentencing enhancement for his managerial role. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the defendant had not preserved his argument regarding the foreseeability of a victim’s use of a credit card for a wire fraud conviction, and regardless, the evidence supported the jury’s verdict. The appellate court also held that the District Court did not err in applying the managerial sentencing enhancement, as evidence showed the defendant exercised control over others in the criminal activity. Finally, the court determined that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting two evidentiary exhibits related to the defendant’s knowledge of lottery scams. The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "USA v. Lyttle" on Justia Law

United States v. Gascot Concepcion

2026-03-10T10:00:53-08:00

Carlos Gascot Concepcion was apprehended at the St. Thomas airport while traveling to Puerto Rico with a suitcase containing over one kilogram of high-purity cocaine. The cocaine was vacuum-sealed, wrapped, hidden inside a backpack, and labeled with a trafficker’s brand. Alongside the cocaine, agents found some cash, two cell phones, and small amounts of a green leafy substance. At trial, the government’s expert testified that the quantity, packaging, and purity of the cocaine were consistent with distribution, not personal use. Concepcion’s defense centered on the claim that he intended to consume the cocaine himself, supported only by his father’s testimony about Concepcion’s history of marijuana use. The District Court of the Virgin Islands presided over Concepcion’s trial. After evidence was presented, Concepcion requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple possession, arguing that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider personal use. The District Court denied this request, finding no rational basis for a jury to conclude Concepcion lacked intent to distribute, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The jury subsequently convicted Concepcion of possession with intent to distribute, and he was sentenced accordingly. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s refusal to give the lesser-included offense instruction for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that a district court need only instruct on a lesser-included offense if the evidence would allow a rational jury to acquit on the greater charge and convict on the lesser. Here, the appellate court agreed that the evidence overwhelmingly established intent to distribute, and that no rational jury could find otherwise. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment and conviction order. View "United States v. Gascot Concepcion" on Justia Law

Massey v. Borough of Bergenfield

2026-03-06T11:00:12-08:00

The plaintiff, a white male, served for decades in the Borough of Bergenfield’s Police Department and was acting as Officer In Charge in 2019. When the Chief position became available, he sought the promotion but was denied in favor of another candidate, an Arab-Muslim male. The plaintiff alleged that the decision was based on racial and religious discrimination, pointing to statements and actions by council members and the Borough Administrator suggesting that race and religion played a role. He brought claims under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The case was first reviewed by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. Regarding the NJLAD claim, the court relied on New Jersey’s “Background Circumstances Rule,” requiring majority-group plaintiffs to show that they were victimized by an employer who discriminates against the majority. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to adequately rebut the defendants’ justifications. It further held that § 1983 did not provide a remedy for employment discrimination claims and that § 1981 did not support a private cause of action. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the Background Circumstances Rule is incompatible with the text of the NJLAD and predicted that the Supreme Court of New Jersey would follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., striking down the rule for state law claims. It reversed the District Court’s summary judgment on the NJLAD and § 1983 claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact requiring a trial. The court affirmed the summary judgment on the § 1981 claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Massey v. Borough of Bergenfield" on Justia Law

RTI Restoration Technologies Inc v. International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund

2026-03-03T11:01:01-08:00

The case involves a multi-employer pension fund seeking to collect withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 from two corporate entities, which the fund alleged were successors to a defunct contributing employer. The companies denied any liability, contending they had never agreed to make contributions to the fund, were not under common control with the original employer, and were not otherwise subject to the fund’s claims. After the fund notified the companies of the alleged liability several years after the original employer ceased operations, the companies sought a declaratory judgment in federal court to clarify that they were not liable. The fund counterclaimed for withdrawal liability, as well as damages and interest. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the companies could be treated as employers under the applicable law, thus precluding summary judgment on that issue. Nevertheless, the District Court granted judgment in favor of the companies on a separate basis: it concluded that the fund’s eight-year delay in providing notice and demanding payment of withdrawal liability failed to meet the statutory requirement under 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)(1) that such notice be given “as soon as practicable.” The court reasoned that this requirement is an independent statutory element—not an affirmative defense subject to waiver or arbitration—and that the fund’s failure to comply with it barred any recovery. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that timely notice and demand is a necessary element for a withdrawal liability claim to accrue under the MPPAA; if the fund fails to act “as soon as practicable,” its claim cannot proceed, regardless of whether the issue is raised in arbitration or by the parties. Arbitration was not required in this circumstance, and the District Court properly resolved the question. View "RTI Restoration Technologies Inc v. International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund" on Justia Law

USA v. Abrams

2026-02-23T11:00:12-08:00

The case concerns a defendant who, as the sole operator of a clean energy startup, misled investors by supplying them with altered documents, forged signatures, and false financial information to exaggerate his company’s position and prospects. After obtaining nearly $1 million from a university-affiliated incubator and several individual investors, he quickly withdrew large sums, routed money through his own accounts in suspicious transfers, and used most of the funds to purchase a personal residence. He repeatedly lied to investors and federal agents to conceal his activities. Despite red flags, the investors disbursed funds based on his representations. A federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania indicted him on multiple counts, including wire fraud, mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, money laundering, unlawful monetary transactions, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. At trial, the defendant made a generalized motion for acquittal under Rule 29, which the District Court denied. The jury found him guilty on all counts. The District Court sentenced him to 72 months in prison and imposed over $1.1 million in restitution, later amended to include attorneys’ fees incurred by the victims. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the defendant raised sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, argued instructional error regarding the aggravated identity theft counts, and disputed the restitution award for attorneys’ fees. The Third Circuit held that a non-specific Rule 29 motion does not preserve all sufficiency arguments for appeal and that, under plain-error review, the evidence supported all convictions. The court found no instructional error or constitutional vagueness in the aggravated identity theft statute. However, it held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act does not authorize restitution for attorneys’ fees. The convictions and sentence were affirmed, the restitution order for attorneys’ fees was vacated, and the case was remanded for entry of an amended judgment. View "USA v. Abrams" on Justia Law

DLJ Mortgage Capital Inc v. Stevens

2026-02-18T13:00:12-08:00

Carlton Stevens mortgaged several adjacent plots of land in St. Croix in 1997 to secure a loan, but eventually defaulted on the payments and died in 2011. Banco Popular, the original mortgagee, assigned its rights to DLJ Mortgage Capital. In 2018, DLJ initiated a foreclosure action in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands against Stevens’s heirs, the IRS (which held expired tax liens), and other subordinate lienholders. DLJ sought debt recovery, foreclosure, quiet title, and reformation of the mortgage to correct a scrivener’s error omitting a plot (20-BC). The IRS removed the case to the District Court of the Virgin Islands, where it was dismissed as a party after the tax liens were found expired. The heirs initially failed to appear, resulting in defaults, but later filed an answer with numerous affirmative defenses, and the defaults were vacated by stipulation. DLJ moved for summary judgment on the debt and foreclosure claims, but the heirs did not respond. Subsequently, the District Court asked DLJ for evidence supporting reformation, and gave the heirs an opportunity to object. The heirs submitted a brief opposition on equitable grounds but provided no evidence. The District Court granted summary judgment against the heirs and an appearing lienholder, default judgment against others, and reformed the mortgage to include plot 20-BC, finding its omission a mutual mistake. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and the mutual mistake finding for clear error. The Third Circuit held that a party forfeits affirmative defenses not raised in opposition to summary judgment, even if previously pled in an answer, and found no extraordinary circumstances to address the forfeited arguments. The Court also concluded that the District Court’s finding of mutual mistake warranting reformation was not clearly erroneous, and affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment and reformation order. View "DLJ Mortgage Capital Inc v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Defense Distributed v. Attorney General New Jersey

2026-02-12T11:00:36-08:00

A Texas-based company distributed files online that enabled the 3D printing of functional, untraceable firearms. After New Jersey’s Attorney General issued a cease-and-desist letter and the state legislature enacted a statute prohibiting the distribution of such files to unlicensed individuals, the company and an affiliated nonprofit restricted New Jersey residents from accessing these files. The plaintiffs challenged the actions, alleging violations of the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments. Initially, the plaintiffs filed suit in the Western District of Texas, which dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs then filed a similar suit in the District of New Jersey, alleging the statute constituted criminal censorship. After complex procedural maneuvers—including appeals and transfers between Texas and New Jersey, and requests for retransfer—the litigation proceeded in the District of New Jersey, which consolidated the relevant cases. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District of New Jersey’s decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s rulings. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying retransfer to Texas. The court further held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a Second Amendment claim, as there were no allegations that any plaintiff or member was prevented from 3D-printing a firearm. The court also found the statute was not void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause, as it provided fair notice of prohibited conduct. Finally, the court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts showing that the computer code at issue was expressive and entitled to First Amendment coverage, as the complaint did not detail the nature or expressive use of the files. The dismissal with prejudice was affirmed. View "Defense Distributed v. Attorney General New Jersey" on Justia Law

Knieling v. Fook

2026-02-11T11:00:36-08:00

Tammy Knieling worked as a chef and deck hand on a chartered boat owned by William Poston and captained by Don Fung Fook. During a voyage, Knieling broke and dislocated her left middle finger while following an order to release the dinghy line. Despite the injury, she continued her work and did not miss any wages. After returning ashore, she was treated for the injury, which resulted in permanent loss of some range of motion. A medical expert suggested possible future treatments, including exercises, injections, and potentially surgery, but could not confirm if she had reached maximum medical improvement or if further treatments would be necessary or effective. Knieling brought suit against both Fook and Poston in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, which conducted a bench trial. The District Court dismissed her claims against Fook but found Poston liable under the Jones Act for negligence, awarding past medical expenses and pain and suffering. The court also found Poston liable for medical expenses under admiralty law but determined Knieling had already recovered these. It declined to award her living expenses, punitive damages, or attorney’s fees, finding she neither took time off work nor incurred additional living costs, and that Poston’s delay in payment was not in bad faith. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that Knieling could not recover maintenance because she did not miss work or incur additional living expenses. The court also held that her claim for future medical expenses was too speculative, as there was insufficient evidence regarding her need for further treatment. However, if she requires curative treatment in the future, she may bring a new claim. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs due to the absence of bad faith by the defendants. View "Knieling v. Fook" on Justia Law

USA v. Smith

2026-02-03T11:48:52-08:00

Dameia Smith, an IRS tax examining clerk, was involved in a series of criminal acts beginning with the armed robbery of a restaurant employee in September 1998. After learning that the victim was cooperating with authorities, Smith accessed the IRS database to obtain her address and expressed intentions to prevent her from testifying, including stating he would kill her. In January 1999, Smith drove to the victim’s home with a firearm and attempted to persuade a friend to kill her; when the friend refused, Smith coerced him into an attempted bank robbery. The plan failed, and Smith was arrested after his friend began cooperating with law enforcement. Smith was tried in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on six counts, including Hobbs Act robbery, unauthorized computer access, solicitation to commit murder of a federal witness, attempted murder of a federal witness, and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The jury initially convicted Smith only of unauthorized computer access, but on retrial, convicted him on all charges. Smith’s § 924(c) conviction was predicated on either solicitation or attempted murder, with a general verdict form not specifying which. The District Court imposed a lengthy sentence and later denied Smith’s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, finding attempted murder of a federal witness was a crime of violence under the elements clause. Subsequent remands and appeals followed Supreme Court decisions narrowing the scope of qualifying predicates for § 924(c). On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that attempted murder of a federal witness categorically qualifies as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)'s elements clause because it necessarily requires proof of the attempted use of physical force. The court also found no reasonable probability that Smith’s § 924(c) conviction was based solely on solicitation, an invalid predicate, rendering any instructional error harmless. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of relief. View "USA v. Smith" on Justia Law

Abramowski v. Nuvei Corp

2026-02-03T11:48:52-08:00

Several shareholders of Paya Holdings, Inc.—who were originally sponsors of a special purpose acquisition company that merged with Paya—held “Earnout Shares” subject to contractual transfer restrictions. Under the Sponsor Support Agreement (“SSA”), these shares could not be transferred until October 2025 unless a “Change in Control” occurred and the price per share exceeded $15.00. If the price was below $15.00, the Earnout Shares would be automatically forfeited prior to consummation of the change. In January 2023, Nuvei Corporation agreed to purchase all Paya shares for $9.75 per share in a tender offer. The offer required that tendered shares be freely transferable. The appellants attempted to tender their Earnout Shares, but Nuvei rejected them, citing the SSA’s restrictions. The shareholders sued Nuvei in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Nuvei violated the SEC’s Best Price Rule, which requires the highest consideration paid to any shareholder in a tender offer to be paid to all shareholders of that class. The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim, reasoning that no consideration was actually paid to the appellants because their shares were not validly tendered due to the transfer restrictions. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The Third Circuit held that the Best Price Rule does not require a tender offeror to purchase shares that are subject to self-imposed transfer restrictions. The Rule mandates equal payment only for shares “taken up and paid for” pursuant to a tender offer, and it is silent regarding whether offerors must accept all tendered shares. Therefore, Nuvei was not required to purchase the appellants’ restricted shares, and dismissal of their claim was proper. View "Abramowski v. Nuvei Corp" on Justia Law

Essintial Enterprise Solutions LLC v. SBA

2026-02-03T11:48:51-08:00

Essintial Enterprise Solutions, LLC, a staffing and services company, received a $7 million Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company calculated its loan amount based on its reported payroll costs, which included payments made to both employees and independent contractors. After the loan was issued and the company applied for forgiveness, its bank approved forgiveness of the full amount. However, the Small Business Administration (SBA) reviewed the forgiveness request and determined that payments made to independent contractors were not eligible as “payroll costs” under the CARES Act, resulting in only partial forgiveness. The SBA forgave approximately $3.7 million and denied forgiveness for the remainder that was based on contractor payments. Essintial challenged the SBA’s decision by filing suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The company argued that the SBA’s interpretation of “payroll costs” was erroneous and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The District Court agreed with Essintial, granting summary judgment in its favor. It held that the SBA’s exclusion of independent contractor payments from payroll costs was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered full loan forgiveness for Essintial. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the statutory definition of “payroll costs” in the CARES Act de novo. The Third Circuit held that the SBA’s interpretation was correct: payments to independent contractors by a business are not included as “payroll costs” for PPP loan forgiveness purposes. The court concluded that the CARES Act provides two separate definitions of “payroll costs” depending on the borrower’s type, and Essintial’s payments to independent contractors did not qualify. The Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Essintial Enterprise Solutions LLC v. SBA" on Justia Law

Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center

2026-02-02T10:00:15-08:00

Two individuals, one a Nigerian citizen and another a Jamaican citizen, were held in U.S. immigration detention for extended periods following the completion of criminal sentences or pending immigration proceedings. Both petitioned for writs of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, challenging their prolonged detention without individualized bond hearings as violations of their Fifth Amendment rights. The District Court granted both petitions, ordered bond hearings, and both individuals were subsequently released on bond. Following their success, each petitioner sought attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The District Court found that the government’s position in opposing the habeas petitions was not "substantially justified" and awarded fees: $18,224.58 to the Nigerian petitioner and $15,841.60 to the Jamaican petitioner. The government appealed these fee awards to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed whether a habeas corpus petition challenging immigration detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 qualifies as a “civil action” under the EAJA, thus entitling prevailing parties to attorneys’ fees and costs. The Third Circuit held that such habeas actions are indeed “civil actions” within the meaning of the EAJA, relying on longstanding legal tradition and statutory interpretation. The court further affirmed that the government’s position in the Nigerian petitioner’s case was not substantially justified, due to the lengthy detention without a bond hearing. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s awards of attorneys’ fees and costs to both petitioners. View "Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center" on Justia Law

Sargent v. School District of Philadelphia

2026-02-02T10:00:14-08:00

Three parents of students in Philadelphia challenged the School District’s 2022 Admissions Policy for four selective public high schools. Prior to 2022, admissions decisions were made by individual schools using academic criteria, attendance, and sometimes additional requirements such as interviews and writing samples. After a report identified geographic disparities in school representation, and following the School District’s public commitments to anti-racism and equity, a new centralized policy was adopted. This policy introduced revised academic standards, eliminated certain prior requirements, and implemented a zip code preference favoring applicants from six areas with high Black and Hispanic populations. Qualified applicants from these zip codes received automatic admission, while others had to enter a lottery for remaining seats. The parents, whose children lived outside the preferred zip codes and met the new criteria but were not admitted to their first-choice schools, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. They alleged violations of Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause, and related state constitutional provisions, arguing that the new process was racially discriminatory. The District Court granted summary judgment for the School District, finding that no reasonable factfinder could conclude the policy had a racially discriminatory purpose or impact. The court applied rational basis review, holding the policy was rationally related to legitimate interests such as increasing access for underrepresented geographic areas. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the parents, a reasonable factfinder could conclude the Admissions Policy had both discriminatory purpose and impact. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, directing that strict scrutiny must be applied if a discriminatory purpose and impact are found. View "Sargent v. School District of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

United States v. Abrams

2026-01-30T10:00:14-08:00

The appellant in this case was the sole owner and operator of a clean energy startup. In order to attract investment, he provided prospective investors with forged business agreements, altered financial statements, and other documents that misrepresented the company’s assets, operational history, and business relationships. He also fabricated the signatures of various business partners and used personal information of others without authorization. Investors provided nearly $1 million based on these representations. The appellant then diverted a substantial portion of the funds for personal use, including the purchase of a residence, and obscured these transactions through rapid transfers among several accounts. He continued to mislead investors about the use of their funds and the status of the business. When questioned by federal agents, he made a series of false statements regarding his activities. A grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania indicted the appellant on multiple counts, including wire fraud, mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, money laundering, unlawful monetary transactions, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. After a nine-day jury trial, the jury found him guilty on all counts. The District Court sentenced him to 72 months’ imprisonment and ordered restitution of approximately $1.2 million, including attorneys’ fees incurred by victims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. On appeal, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, the constitutionality of the aggravated identity theft statute, denial of a good faith instruction, and the restitution order. The Court held that a general Rule 29 motion does not preserve all sufficiency arguments for appeal and found no plain error in the conviction. It also found the jury instructions and statute to be proper and the denial of the good faith instruction not to be an abuse of discretion. However, the Court held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act does not authorize restitution for attorneys’ fees, vacated that portion of the restitution order, and remanded for entry of an amended judgment. All other aspects of the conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Abrams" on Justia Law

Phath v. Central Transport LLC

2026-01-28T10:00:14-08:00

Rodney Phath applied for a truck driving position with Central Transport LLC. He had the necessary qualifications and disclosed during the hiring process that he had a fifteen-year-old armed robbery conviction, for which he had served six years in prison. Upon learning of this conviction, Central Transport immediately decided not to hire him. Phath then filed a lawsuit, alleging that Central Transport violated a Pennsylvania statute that restricts how employers may use criminal history information in employment decisions. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Phath’s claim. The court reasoned that the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act did not apply in this instance because Central Transport had learned of Phath’s conviction directly from him, rather than from a state agency’s records. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the matter de novo. The Third Circuit held that the Act’s protections are triggered whenever an employer receives information that is part of an applicant’s criminal history record information file, regardless of the source of that information. The court concluded that nothing in the statute requires the information to come specifically from a state agency’s file. Thus, by learning of Phath’s conviction—even through his own disclosure—Central Transport was subject to the Act’s provisions, including restrictions on how it may use that information and requirements for notifying the applicant if rejected on that basis. As a result, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the Act applies even when an applicant self-discloses criminal history information. View "Phath v. Central Transport LLC" on Justia Law

Sports Enterprises Inc v. Goldklang

2026-01-21T10:00:07-08:00

A minor league baseball team in Oregon lost its longstanding affiliation with a Major League Baseball (MLB) club after MLB restructured its relationship with minor league teams in 2020. The team’s owner alleges that a minority owner of an MLB franchise, who also served on the board and a negotiation committee of the national minor league association, acted to reduce the number of minor league clubs for personal gain, which resulted in the team’s exclusion from the new affiliation structure. The owner claims that the association’s rules left it dependent on the board and committee members to protect its interests. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the owner’s complaint, finding that it failed to plausibly allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the board member and the team. The owner appealed, arguing that fiduciary duties arose under Florida’s non-profit statute, by contract, or by implication due to the structure of the association and the interactions between the parties. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s dismissal de novo. The Third Circuit held that Florida’s non-profit statute does not create a fiduciary duty from a director to the members of the non-profit, only to the corporation itself. The court also found no express or implied fiduciary duty arising from contractual provisions or the surrounding circumstances. The court distinguished direct and derivative actions and concluded that the complaint did not allege facts to support a direct or implied fiduciary relationship. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Sports Enterprises Inc v. Goldklang" on Justia Law

USA v. Minter

2026-01-16T10:00:07-08:00

The case concerns an individual who was stopped by police after a reported road-rage incident in which a firearm was allegedly brandished. During the traffic stop, officers observed a loaded firearm in plain view. The defendant, who had prior felony convictions and was still on state parole, was then charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of federal law. After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the defendant was convicted of the charged offense. At sentencing, the District Court calculated the advisory guidelines range based on the defendant’s criminal history and prior convictions, including a prior drug offense and an unlawful wounding conviction. The Court determined that these prior convictions triggered a heightened sentencing range under the guidelines, but imposed a sentence below the statutory maximum. The defendant appealed, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the interstate commerce element and the constitutionality of the statute as applied, as well as the classification of his prior unlawful wounding conviction as a “crime of violence” under the guidelines. Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the defendant’s challenges to his conviction were foreclosed by binding circuit precedent. On the sentencing issue, the court acknowledged that a recent Supreme Court decision, Delligatti v. United States, abrogated prior circuit precedent regarding the interpretation of “crime of violence.” Under Delligatti, the defendant’s prior unlawful wounding conviction qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of the sentencing guidelines. The Third Circuit accordingly affirmed both the conviction and the sentence. View "USA v. Minter" on Justia Law

Khalil v. President United States of America

2026-01-15T10:00:07-08:00

Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian citizen and lawful permanent resident, was arrested in March 2025 by Homeland Security agents at his New York City apartment and charged as removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s foreign-policy provision. Khalil, a Columbia University student and vocal advocate for Palestinian rights, was accused of having activities with potentially adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. After his arrest, he was quickly transferred from New York to New Jersey, and then to Louisiana. His attorney initially filed a habeas petition in the Southern District of New York, seeking to enjoin his detention and removal, arguing retaliation against protected speech, and due process violations. The Southern District of New York, finding Khalil was already detained in New Jersey when the petition was filed, transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New Jersey District Court asserted jurisdiction, denied the government’s motion to dismiss, and determined that the INA did not strip it of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted Khalil’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the foreign-policy removal charge, ordered that he not be removed, and later ordered his release from custody. Meanwhile, an immigration judge in Louisiana found Khalil removable on both foreign-policy and fraud charges and ordered his removal, resulting in conflicting mandates. Reviewing the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the District Court had habeas jurisdiction, as the petition was properly transferred and related back to Khalil’s district of confinement. However, the Third Circuit found that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) of the INA strips the District Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims arising from removal actions, channeling such claims into a petition for review of a final order of removal in the court of appeals. As a result, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition. View "Khalil v. President United States of America" on Justia Law

United States v. Schuster

2026-01-14T10:00:07-08:00

Nicole Schuster, a mechanical engineer at the Naval Foundry and Propeller Center, led two Navy procurement projects for large machines known as vertical turning centers (VTCs) in 2017 and 2019. In 2017, she favored Company 1, which won the SU22 contract, while Company 2’s bid was rejected as technically unacceptable. In 2019, Schuster again favored Company 1 for the SU25 contract and, after learning Company 2 had bid, she disclosed Company 2’s confidential bid information from the earlier SU22 procurement to an employee of Company 1. This information included cost data and proprietary manufacturing details. Company 1 subsequently won the SU25 contract, with Company 2’s bid deemed too expensive. Schuster was charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with violating the Procurement Integrity Act, specifically 41 U.S.C. §§ 2102(a) and 2105(a), which prohibit disclosure of contractor bid or proposal information before the award of the procurement to which the information relates. Schuster pled guilty based on a plea agreement, which included a factual basis describing the machines as “virtually identical” but did not detail whether the information she disclosed was the same in substance as that submitted for the pending SU25 procurement. The District Court accepted her guilty plea and sentenced her to one year and one day in prison. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case, applying plain error review to Schuster’s challenge to the sufficiency of the factual basis for her plea. The Court held that the District Court erred by accepting the guilty plea without sufficient facts to establish that the disclosed information related to the pending procurement as required by statute. The Third Circuit vacated Schuster’s conviction and sentence and remanded the case for repleading, rather than entering judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Schuster" on Justia Law

USA v. Texidor

2026-01-08T10:00:08-08:00

Christopher Texidor was charged alongside several codefendants for participating in a large-scale drug trafficking organization that conspired to ship nearly 3,000 kilograms of marijuana from California to Pennsylvania using the United States Postal Service. Texidor used his business, Fastlane Auto Sales, LLC, and his residence to facilitate these activities. He recruited various individuals, including family members, to receive shipments and organized GPS tracking for parcels after noticing thefts. When the group determined a postal employee was responsible for stealing their parcels, Texidor and others organized violent acts to intimidate him, including drive-by shootings and theft of the employee’s vehicle containing drugs and a firearm. During searches, law enforcement discovered drugs, tracking devices, firearms, and cash at Texidor’s properties. Texidor was also separately indicted for wire fraud involving false Paycheck Protection Program loan applications, which he committed while on pretrial release. Following a six-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, a jury convicted Texidor on most drug and firearm counts, but acquitted him of the cocaine charge and a related firearm count. Texidor later pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, with other fraud charges dismissed. The District Court considered both cases at sentencing, calculated a Guidelines range of 292–365 months, and imposed concurrent sentences: 292 months for the drug/firearm offenses and 240 months for wire fraud. The District Court struck one reference to cocaine from the Presentence Investigation Report but overruled objections to other references and applied a four-level leadership enhancement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s rulings. It held that recent changes to the Sentencing Guidelines do not prevent consideration of acquitted conduct when determining an appropriate sentence outside of Guidelines calculations. The Court found no clear error in applying the leadership enhancement and concluded that the aggregate sentence was substantively reasonable. Further, under the concurrent sentence doctrine, the Court declined to review the substantive reasonableness of the wire fraud sentence. View "USA v. Texidor" on Justia Law

USA v. Mendoza

2026-01-08T10:00:08-08:00

Ryan Mendoza checked into a Pittsburgh hotel for a two-night stay, receiving a receipt indicating his departure date as February 25. The hotel had a posted noon checkout time, and guests could leave either by visiting the front desk or simply walking out. By noon on February 25, Mendoza had not checked out at the front desk, so hotel staff placed him on a “due-out” list and inspected his room. Later that afternoon, the hotel manager discovered a backpack with packages of white powder and called the police. Around 5:20 p.m., officers entered the room without a warrant and confirmed with the manager that Mendoza’s stay had ended and he no longer had rights to the room. Mendoza returned to the hotel at 10:00 p.m. and was arrested. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Mendoza moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the hotel room, arguing that he retained a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the room because he had not formally checked out. The District Court denied the motion, finding that Mendoza did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room after checkout time, based on hotel policies and practices. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and exercised plenary review over its legal determinations. The Third Circuit held that Mendoza’s expectation of privacy in the hotel room five hours after checkout time was not objectively reasonable. The court emphasized that, absent any communication about a late checkout or ambiguous circumstances, society does not recognize an expectation of privacy in a hotel room well after checkout time. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "USA v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

Savane v. Secretary United States Department of Homeland Sec

2026-01-07T10:00:07-08:00

Ousmane Savane, a citizen of Côte d’Ivoire, entered the United States in 2012 through the Diversity Visa Program. During his initial application (the eDV), and in his subsequent Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration (DS-230), Savane did not disclose that he had two children, despite both forms requiring such information. He later explained that he omitted his children on the advice of a “coach” who helped him complete the forms, believing that doing so would facilitate his entry for financial reasons. The consular officer who interviewed Savane did not ask about his children, and Savane was admitted as a lawful permanent resident. In 2020, Savane applied for naturalization and disclosed all four of his children. He initially denied, but later admitted, that he had previously lied to U.S. officials to gain immigration benefits. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied his naturalization application, finding that his earlier omissions rendered him not “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Savane appealed administratively, arguing that the omissions were immaterial, but USCIS affirmed its denial. He then petitioned for review in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which granted summary judgment for the government, holding that Savane’s omission was material because it shut off a line of inquiry relevant to his eligibility. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2), an omission from an immigration application is material if it prevents investigation into a relevant aspect of eligibility, regardless of whether the omitted information would have led to denial. The court concluded that Savane’s failure to disclose his children precluded the consular officer from properly evaluating his eligibility, particularly regarding whether he was likely to become a public charge. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment for the government. View "Savane v. Secretary United States Department of Homeland Sec" on Justia Law

USA v. Munoz

2026-01-06T10:00:07-08:00

In November 2020, a United States Coast Guard cutter intercepted a vessel in international waters, far from Colombia. The vessel attempted to flee but was stopped and boarded. On board, authorities found three occupants—two Costa Rican nationals, including Munoz, and a Colombian national—and seized 383 kilograms of cocaine. The vessel lacked any registration documents, flag, or markings indicating nationality, and all occupants claimed to be the master without asserting the vessel’s nationality when prompted by Coast Guard officials. Based on these facts, the Coast Guard determined the vessel was subject to United States jurisdiction. A grand jury in the District Court of the Virgin Islands indicted Munoz for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). Munoz moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the MDLEA was unconstitutional and that the United States lacked jurisdiction over the vessel, requesting an evidentiary hearing. The District Court denied his motion without a hearing. Munoz then entered a conditional guilty plea to the conspiracy charge, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. After sentencing, the government dismissed the possession charge per the plea agreement, and Munoz timely appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed Munoz’s constitutional challenge to the MDLEA and the District Court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing. The court held that the MDLEA does not exceed Congress’s authority under the Felonies Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution, because the Felonies Clause is not limited by international law. It also held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing, as the parties had stipulated to all material facts, leaving only legal questions for resolution. The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment. View "USA v. Munoz" on Justia Law

Valli v. Avis Budget Group Inc

2025-12-16T10:00:56-08:00

A woman rented a car from a rental company in 2014 and, after a traffic camera recorded a violation during her rental, the company paid the fine and charged her both the fine amount and an administrative fee. She filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of customers who were charged fines and fees in similar circumstances, alleging state-law claims such as violations of consumer fraud statutes and unjust enrichment. The rental company later updated its rental agreements in 2016 to include an arbitration clause and class-action waiver, but this provision applied only prospectively to rentals after its adoption. The named plaintiffs’ rentals predated this clause. The District Court, after years of litigation that included several amended complaints, discovery, mediation, and a motion to certify a class, ultimately certified a subclass that included some renters whose agreements contained the arbitration provision. The District Court found that the rental company had waived its right to enforce arbitration by participating in litigation for several years without moving to compel arbitration. The company then filed a motion to compel arbitration for the affected class members, which the District Court denied again on waiver grounds, emphasizing that the company had not sought to enforce arbitration until after class certification. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the waiver issue de novo. The Third Circuit held that waiver of the right to compel arbitration did not occur here, because the company’s conduct—such as raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and the futility of seeking to compel arbitration prior to class certification—did not evince an intentional relinquishment of that right. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration and remanded for consideration of other unresolved questions about enforceability. View "Valli v. Avis Budget Group Inc" on Justia Law

Miller v. City of Philadelphia

2025-12-15T10:00:31-08:00

Police investigating a fatal drive-by shooting in Philadelphia identified several suspects, including T.C., and obtained an arrest warrant for him. Detectives used multiple databases, including CLEAR and police records, to determine T.C.’s last known address, which pointed to 4838 Stenton Avenue. Believing T.C. resided there, detectives and a SWAT team executed the warrant early one morning. Instead of finding T.C., officers encountered Richard Miller and Tonya Crawley, who had lived at the residence for two years and were not connected to T.C. The officers detained Miller and Crawley briefly and then left after learning T.C. was not present. T.C. was later located and cleared of wrongdoing. Miller and Crawley sued the involved officers and the City of Philadelphia in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers lacked probable cause and violated the Fourth Amendment, and that the City failed to train or supervise its officers. The District Court dismissed the municipal-liability claim for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to the officers on the unlawful-entry claim, holding that they had probable cause to enter the residence. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed both the dismissal and summary judgment de novo. The court held that, although the District Court incorrectly invoked the good-faith exception, the error was harmless because the officers had probable cause to believe T.C. lived at the address and would likely be home at the early hour. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to establish municipal liability, as there was no pattern of similar constitutional violations or plausible basis for single-incident liability. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decisions. View "Miller v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

McLoughlin v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P.

2025-12-15T10:00:31-08:00

Several individuals who were former partners at Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., BGC Holdings L.P., and Newmark Holdings L.P. separated from those partnerships and were entitled to receive certain payments after their departure. These payments included an initial amount plus four annual installment payments, but the partnership agreements allowed the partnerships to withhold the annual payments if the former partners engaged in broadly defined “Competitive Activity.” The partnerships exercised this right and withheld payments from the plaintiffs after determining they had engaged in such activity. The plaintiffs alleged that these provisions constituted unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and, for two plaintiffs, a violation of Delaware’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead an “antitrust injury,” which is necessary to assert a claim under the Sherman Act, and further held that the implied covenant claims failed because the partnership agreements gave the partnerships express contractual discretion to withhold the payments when a former partner competed, leaving no contractual gap for the implied covenant to fill. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs’ pecuniary injuries, stemming from the withholding of payments, were not antitrust injuries because they did not result from anticompetitive conduct affecting their status as market participants, nor were their injuries inextricably intertwined with any anticompetitive scheme. Regarding the implied covenant claims, the Third Circuit found that the relevant agreements expressly permitted withholding the payments under the circumstances, and there was no plausible allegation that the partnerships exercised their discretion in bad faith. View "McLoughlin v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P." on Justia Law

USA v. Brown

2025-12-11T10:00:10-08:00

Jerome Brown was indicted after law enforcement discovered over thirteen kilograms of fentanyl, a handgun, ammunition, and a large sum of cash in his car, home, and storage unit during a drug-trafficking investigation near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. After his arrest, Brown confessed to the offenses. Rather than proceed to trial, he entered into plea negotiations with the government. The parties initially presented a plea agreement to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recommending a sentence of 180 months, the mandatory minimum. The District Court rejected this agreement, finding it inconsistent with the Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory sentencing factors. The parties then negotiated a second agreement for a 198-month sentence, which the District Court also rejected, instead proposing its own sentence of no less than 235 months. Brown, after consulting with counsel, opted to plead guilty without a plea agreement, understanding the District Court’s sentencing position. He was ultimately sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment with ten years of supervised release. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether the District Court’s involvement in plea negotiations, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1), required vacatur of Brown’s guilty plea. The Court found that the District Court had improperly participated in plea discussions. However, applying plain error review, the Third Circuit held that Brown failed to demonstrate that this error affected his substantial rights because the record showed he intended to plead guilty regardless of the court’s actions. The Court also rejected Brown’s constitutional challenge to his firearm conviction, noting binding precedent that forecloses his argument. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "USA v. Brown" on Justia Law

USA v. Eddings

2025-12-09T10:00:09-08:00

An employee was hired by a nonprofit organization to help organize a fundraiser and was given access to a board member’s email account for work purposes. After a dispute about the nature of her employment, the employee resigned and requested payment for her services, but the organization stopped communicating with her and did not pay. The former employee, still having technical access to the email account, began accessing it, downloaded internal documents, and sent them to a friend. The friend subsequently threatened the organization with releasing these documents unless both were paid substantial sums. The organization eventually revoked the employee’s access and reported the matter to the authorities. A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted both individuals on several counts of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which prohibits intentionally accessing a computer “without authorization.” At trial, the prosecution’s theory was that the employee’s resignation automatically ended her authorization to access the email account, making her subsequent access a crime. The district court denied defense motions for acquittal and a new trial, the latter of which challenged both the jury instructions on authorization and the prosecutor’s remarks about extortion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, in the absence of any evidence the organization took affirmative steps to revoke the employee’s authorization—or any contract linking authorization to employment—the mere act of resignation did not terminate authorization under the CFAA. The court found the jury instruction on authorization erroneous and determined there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Third Circuit vacated the conviction and ordered a judgment of acquittal. The court also found that any improper remarks by the prosecutor were harmless given the curative instructions. View "USA v. Eddings" on Justia Law

Otero v. Kane

2025-12-05T10:00:12-08:00

Two Philadelphia police officers responded to reports of drug dealing and observed what they believed to be a drug transaction. When the suspected dealer, Tahir Ellison, saw the officers, he fled in his SUV. The officers pursued Ellison, initially at normal speeds, but the chase escalated when Ellison ran a red light, drove the wrong way down a one-way street, and sped up significantly. The officers followed, also running red lights and reaching high speeds. The chase lasted less than a minute and ended when Ellison crashed into another car, killing an uninvolved bystander, Virgen Martinez. Ellison later pleaded guilty to criminal charges relating to the incident. After the incident, Joshua Otero, as administrator of Martinez’s estate, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit alleged that the officers, by engaging in a high-speed chase in a densely populated area, violated Martinez’s Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The officers moved for partial summary judgment based on the absence of intent to harm and on qualified immunity. The magistrate judge found no evidence of intent to harm but denied summary judgment on both the constitutional and qualified immunity arguments, certifying the case for interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that police officers engaged in a high-speed chase are constitutionally liable for injuries to bystanders only if they acted with intent to harm. Because the officers did not intend to harm anyone, they could not be liable under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also held that qualified immunity applied, as no clearly established law prohibited the officers’ conduct under these circumstances. The Third Circuit reversed the district court and instructed it to enter partial summary judgment for the officers. View "Otero v. Kane" on Justia Law

Bryman v. Murphy

2025-12-05T10:00:10-08:00

A New Jersey physician wished to provide medical aid in dying to terminally ill patients, including nonresidents seeking this service under New Jersey’s law that permits doctor-assisted suicide. The relevant statute allows only New Jersey residents, with a prognosis of six months or fewer to live, to request and obtain a prescription for life-ending medication. Patients must demonstrate residency through various documents and satisfy several procedural safeguards. The plaintiff, a physician, challenged the law’s residency requirement after two terminally ill nonresidents who had joined the suit died during the course of litigation. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that the right to receive medical aid in dying was neither a fundamental privilege nor a fundamental right requiring extension to nonresidents under the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. It further found the law was not economic protectionism and survived rational-basis review. The plaintiff appealed this decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. It held that New Jersey’s restriction of doctor-assisted suicide to its own residents does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause because there is no longstanding tradition making such access a fundamental privilege, nor does it violate the Equal Protection Clause, as there is no fundamental right to assisted suicide or to interstate travel for this purpose. The Third Circuit also determined that the law does not offend the dormant Commerce Clause since it is a moral rather than commercial regulation and does not discriminate against out-of-state economic interests. The court concluded that New Jersey’s residency requirement is constitutionally permissible, justified by the state’s interests in protecting doctors, avoiding interstate friction, and safeguarding patients. View "Bryman v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Spring Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center LLC v. NLRB

2025-12-03T10:00:09-08:00

Spring Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center purchased a skilled nursing facility previously operated by Amboy Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. Amboy had a longstanding collective bargaining relationship with a union representing its employees, and a dispute arose when Amboy sold the facility to Spring Creek without ensuring that Spring Creek would assume certain monetary obligations to employees under the expired collective bargaining agreement. The union filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against both Amboy and, later, Spring Creek, alleging Spring Creek refused to bargain collectively and in good faith. After the NLRB issued a complaint and scheduled a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), Spring Creek filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Spring Creek sought to enjoin the NLRB proceedings, arguing that NLRB ALJs are unconstitutionally insulated from presidential removal. The District Court denied Spring Creek’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that Spring Creek had not shown it would suffer irreparable harm without the relief. The NLRB administrative hearing subsequently took place, though no decision had been issued at the time of appeal. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s denial of injunctive relief. The Third Circuit determined that, because the action sought by Spring Creek arose from a labor dispute between Spring Creek and its employees, the Norris-LaGuardia Act deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to issue the requested injunction against the NLRB. The court held that the Act’s anti-injunction provisions broadly apply to cases involving or growing out of labor disputes and that no statutory or judicial exception to the Act applied in this instance. Accordingly, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Spring Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

USA v. Giraud

2025-12-01T10:00:49-08:00

Several defendants facing prosecution for federal criminal charges in the District of New Jersey challenged the authority of Alina Habba to serve as Acting U.S. Attorney. They argued that her appointment violated federal law governing who may serve as an acting official in positions requiring presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Habba’s appointment followed a series of administrative moves: after the previous U.S. Attorney resigned, the First Assistant U.S. Attorney initially assumed the acting duties under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). The Attorney General later appointed interim U.S. Attorneys, including Habba, under a statute specific to U.S. Attorneys, and after Habba’s interim term expired, she was made a Special Attorney and designated First Assistant, with the government contending this made her eligible for acting service under the FVRA. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, presided over by Judge Matthew W. Brann, denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss their indictments but granted their motions to disqualify Habba from participating in the prosecutions. The court found that Habba was not lawfully serving as Acting U.S. Attorney under the governing statutes. The government appealed the disqualification order. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court's order under the collateral order doctrine. The Third Circuit held that only the First Assistant in place at the time of the vacancy is eligible for automatic acting service under the FVRA and that Habba, having been nominated for the permanent U.S. Attorney position, was barred from acting service by the FVRA’s nomination restriction. The court also held that the Attorney General’s broad delegation of all U.S. Attorney powers to Habba was prohibited by the FVRA’s exclusivity provision. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order disqualifying Habba from the prosecutions. View "USA v. Giraud" on Justia Law

Elad v. NCAA

2025-11-25T10:00:10-08:00

A student athlete who played football at Rutgers University challenged two NCAA Division I bylaws that counted seasons played at junior colleges toward the NCAA’s limit of four seasons of eligibility over a five-year period. The athlete, Jett Elad, had played at Ohio University, Garden City Community College (a junior college), and UNLV, exhausting his eligibility under the rule despite only playing three seasons at NCAA Division I schools. After learning of a favorable ruling for another athlete in a similar situation, Elad sought a waiver from the NCAA, which was denied. He then entered the transfer portal, was recruited by Rutgers, received a lucrative NIL contract, and filed suit seeking an injunction to allow him to play an additional season. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Elad a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from counting his junior college season toward his eligibility limit. The NCAA appealed, arguing that the rule was not subject to antitrust scrutiny and that the lower court had failed to properly define the relevant market for its antitrust analysis. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and applied de novo review to the district court’s legal conclusions and clear error review to factual findings. The appellate court held that NCAA eligibility rules are not categorically exempt from Sherman Act scrutiny and that the challenged “JUCO Rule” had a commercial effect because it restrained participation in the college football labor market. However, the court found that the district court erred by failing to adequately define the relevant market and by relying on outdated market realities that did not reflect changes following NCAA v. Alston. The Third Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to conduct a proper market analysis. View "Elad v. NCAA" on Justia Law

Giordano v. Hohns

2025-11-18T10:00:46-08:00

Two private-citizen members of a federally created commission, along with several federal officials, were involved in planning the United States’ 250th anniversary celebrations. The commission was established by Congress and included both federal officials and private citizens appointed by congressional leaders. After a dispute over leadership and the selection of an administrative secretariat, three commission members made public statements criticizing the commission’s Chairperson and Executive Director, alleging mismanagement and other misconduct. The Chairperson and Executive Director claimed these statements damaged their reputations and led to their removal, prompting them to file a tort action—including defamation and related claims—against the three members in Pennsylvania state court. After the complaint was filed, the Attorney General certified that the defendants were acting within the scope of their federal employment, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and substituted the United States as the defendant under the Westfall Act. The District Court determined that the commission members qualified as federal employees, that their statements were made within the scope of their employment, and that discovery was unnecessary. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, as the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does not waive sovereign immunity for defamation claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that the commission is a federal agency under the FTCA and Westfall Act, and that its private-citizen members are “employees of the government” for purposes of those statutes. The court further held that the defendants’ statements were made within the scope of their employment and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery. The dismissal was affirmed because sovereign immunity barred the plaintiffs’ claims. View "Giordano v. Hohns" on Justia Law

Viola v. US Department of Justice

2025-11-03T10:00:30-08:00

An Ohio resident was investigated by a county mortgage fraud task force, leading to federal charges for wire fraud and conspiracy, and state charges for related offenses. In federal court, a jury convicted him on most counts, resulting in a lengthy prison sentence. In state court, however, a jury acquitted him of all charges. During the state proceedings, a former task force employee alleged prosecutorial misconduct and was later found deceased, which further motivated the man to seek evidence of government wrongdoing. While incarcerated in Pennsylvania, he submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the FBI and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), seeking records related to his cases and the alleged misconduct. After the agencies failed to respond within the statutory timeframe, he filed a civil enforcement action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As litigation progressed, both agencies began producing records and provided Vaughn indexes detailing their redactions and withholdings. The plaintiff amended his complaint to add the county task force and a witness as defendants. The District Court dismissed the task force for lack of personal jurisdiction and entered summary judgment for the federal agencies, finding their searches and withholdings adequate. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the task force, holding it was not a federal agency and that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction. The Third Circuit affirmed EOUSA’s search as adequate but found the FBI’s search lacking in scope and method regarding certain records. The court also vacated summary judgment in part, ruling that both agencies failed to sufficiently justify some redactions and withholdings under FOIA exemptions, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court did not retain jurisdiction over the remanded matters. View "Viola v. US Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Charles G. Berwind Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

2025-10-30T09:00:08-08:00

The case concerns a dispute over the tax characterization of a $191 million payment made in 2002 to the Charles G. Berwind Trust (DB Trust) following a complex series of corporate transactions and litigation. The Berwind Corporation, a closely held coal mining business, was owned through family trusts. In 1999, a short-form merger under Pennsylvania law resulted in the DB Trust’s shares in Berwind Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (BPSI) being extinguished, with the DB Trust entitled to payment for its shares. The DB Trust challenged the validity of the merger and the valuation of its shares through federal and state litigation, ultimately leading to a settlement in 2002, where BPSI paid the DB Trust $191 million. After the settlement, a tax dispute arose regarding whether a portion of the settlement payment should be treated as interest (taxed as ordinary income) or as capital gains. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined that part of the payment represented unstated interest under Section 483 of the Internal Revenue Code, which applies to deferred payments under contracts for the sale of property. The DB Trust petitioned the United States Tax Court for redetermination, arguing that the payment was made under the 2002 Settlement Agreement, not the 1999 Merger Agreement, and thus should be taxed entirely as capital gains. The United States Tax Court found that the sale of the DB Trust’s shares occurred in 1999 under the Merger Agreement, which constituted a contract for the sale of property. The court held that the 2002 payment was made “under” the 1999 Merger Agreement, triggering Section 483 and requiring a portion of the payment to be treated as interest. The DB Trust appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that Section 483 applied because the payment was made under a contract for the sale of property, and the Merger Agreement served as the basis for the payment obligation. Thus, the interest portion of the payment is taxable as ordinary income. View "Charles G. Berwind Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Freeman v. Lincalis

2025-10-29T09:00:09-08:00

Rocky Freeman was involved in a Brooklyn drug ring and was hired to kill a rival dealer, Freddie Gonzalez, in 1993. He was later arrested and charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York with drug conspiracy, the Gonzalez murder, and the unrelated murder of Augustin Sosa. At trial, Freeman was convicted of the drug and Gonzalez murder counts but acquitted of the Sosa murder. However, his presentence report (PSR) incorrectly stated that he had committed both murders. Although a judge ordered the error corrected, the PSR was not amended, and the inaccurate report was transmitted to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Freeman subsequently endured heightened security conditions in prison, including solitary confinement and severe restrictions, which he later attributed to the erroneous PSR. Freeman discovered the error in 2015 and pursued administrative remedies, including filing an SF-95 form alleging a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) violation. He then filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the BOP, the U.S. Probation Office (USPO), his unit manager, and probation officers, alleging FTCA and Bivens claims. The District Court dismissed his FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction and on the merits, and dismissed his Bivens claim for failure to serve the probation officers. Freeman appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing Freeman’s FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding that he had properly presented his claim to the appropriate agency. The court also held that the District Court improperly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s physical injury requirement to the FTCA presentment phase. The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of the FTCA claim and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Freeman’s Bivens claim, concluding that his claim was not cognizable under current Supreme Court precedent. View "Freeman v. Lincalis" on Justia Law

Parker v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission

2025-10-24T09:00:17-08:00

A woman with a lifelong hearing impairment obtained a commercial driver’s license (CDL) in New Jersey after receiving a federal exemption from the standard hearing requirement. This exemption allowed her to drive commercial vehicles in interstate commerce but specifically prohibited her from operating passenger vehicles or school buses. Despite this, she was mistakenly issued state endorsements permitting her to drive such vehicles and worked as a campus shuttle bus driver for about eight months. When the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (NJMVC) realized the error, it revoked her passenger and school bus endorsements without providing a pre-revocation hearing. Instead of seeking review in New Jersey Superior Court, the woman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. She alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, as well as a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed some claims and ultimately granted summary judgment to the defendants on all remaining claims, finding she was not “qualified” for the endorsements and had no property interest in them. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual with a disability” under the relevant statutes because she could not meet the essential eligibility requirement of passing the hearing test for the endorsements. The court also held that, even assuming a property interest in the endorsements, due process did not require a pre-revocation hearing given the state’s strong safety interests and the availability of post-deprivation remedies. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. View "Parker v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission" on Justia Law

Oxford House Inc v. Township of North Bergen

2025-10-24T09:00:15-08:00

A nonprofit organization that assists individuals recovering from alcoholism and substance abuse sought to establish a group home in a New Jersey township by leasing a two-family dwelling. Before residents could move in, the township required a Certificate of Continuing Occupancy (CCO). The organization’s application for the CCO was denied by the township’s zoning officer, who stated that the intended use violated local zoning ordinances. The township’s attorney later explained that the group home was considered a “Community Residence” under state law and thus could not operate in a two-family dwelling. The organization disputed this classification but received no further response from the township. After the denial, the organization filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and sought a preliminary injunction. The District Court denied the preliminary injunction, finding the organization had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed that denial. The organization then filed a First Amended Complaint, which the township moved to dismiss. The District Court granted the motion, holding that the amended complaint failed to state a claim and denied leave to amend further, reasoning that prior rulings had already provided notice of deficiencies and that amendment would be futile. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, finding insufficient factual allegations to support a plausible inference of discriminatory intent or disparate impact. However, the court vacated the denial of leave to amend, holding that the District Court erred in concluding amendment would be futile, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Oxford House Inc v. Township of North Bergen" on Justia Law

Migliore v. Vision Solar LLC

2025-10-22T09:00:10-08:00

An elderly homeowner in New Jersey was approached by a door-to-door salesman who offered her “free” rooftop solar panels. She accepted the offer after some hesitation, but was never shown or asked to sign any paperwork. Later, her son discovered that she had been signed up for a 25-year loan of nearly $100,000, with documents digitally signed in her name and sent to a fake email address created by the salesman. The solar panels were installed but were unusable due to the home’s condition. When the homeowner tried to cancel, the companies involved refused. She then sued the solar company, its CEO, and the lenders who financed the panels, alleging fraud and violations of both state and federal law. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed her claims against the lenders, Sunlight Financial LLC and Cross River Bank, finding that she had not plausibly alleged that the salesman was acting as their agent. The court allowed some claims against the solar company and its CEO to proceed, but the plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed those remaining claims. She then appealed the dismissal of her claims against the lenders. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege an agency relationship between the salesman and the lenders, as required for vicarious liability under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The court also found that the plaintiff did not plead direct liability with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), and that the lenders’ actions in obtaining her credit report were permissible under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of all claims against the lenders. View "Migliore v. Vision Solar LLC" on Justia Law

USA v. Mattia

2025-10-21T09:00:10-08:00

An employee of a telecommunications company, who also served as a union representative, was charged with defrauding a pharmacy benefits management company by orchestrating the submission of fraudulent claims for compounded medications. The government alleged that he induced another individual to obtain medically unnecessary compounded drugs and arranged for a doctor to sign prescriptions without a medical examination or determination of necessity. The prescriptions were then used to submit claims to the company’s health plan, and the employee received a percentage of the reimbursement. The government further alleged that the employee paid the individual to participate in the scheme and later instructed him to lie to investigators. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the superseding indictment. The court found that the indictment failed to allege any actionable misrepresentation or omission under 18 U.S.C. § 1347, did not specify how the fraudulent claims were submitted or by whom, and did not identify any false statements or omissions in the claims. The court also expressed concern about the use of the term “medically unnecessary,” finding it vague and undefined. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the indictment de novo. The Third Circuit held that the indictment adequately alleged an implicit misrepresentation: that the prescriptions, incorporated into the claims, falsely implied medical necessity and a legitimate doctor-patient relationship. The court found that such implicit misrepresentations are actionable under the health care fraud statute. The court also determined that the indictment’s language was sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the charges. Accordingly, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "USA v. Mattia" on Justia Law

Patel v. USA

2025-10-17T09:00:11-08:00

Nita and Kirtish Patel operated two companies that provided mobile diagnostic medical services. To obtain Medicare reimbursement for neurological testing, they falsely represented that a licensed neurologist would supervise the tests. In reality, Kirtish, who lacked a medical license, wrote the reports, and Nita forged a physician’s signature. Their fraudulent scheme generated over $4 million, including substantial Medicare payments. In 2014, a former employee filed a sealed qui tam action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging healthcare fraud and asserting claims under the False Claims Act. The Patels were subsequently arrested and each pleaded guilty to one count of healthcare fraud. Their plea agreements did not address or preclude future civil or administrative actions. After their guilty pleas, the Government intervened in the qui tam action and obtained summary judgment against the Patels, relying on collateral estoppel from their criminal admissions. The District Court trebled the Medicare loss and imposed civil penalties, resulting in a judgment exceeding $7 million. Nita appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed her liability under the False Claims Act. Both Patels later moved to vacate their criminal sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because their attorneys did not advise them that their guilty pleas could have collateral estoppel effects in the civil qui tam action. The District Court denied their motions, finding that counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable and that the Patels were aware their plea agreements did not preclude civil actions. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Sixth Amendment does not require criminal defense counsel to advise clients of collateral consequences such as civil liability under the False Claims Act. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment, concluding that Padilla v. Kentucky’s holding is limited to deportation consequences and does not extend to civil liability. View "Patel v. USA" on Justia Law

Lundeen v. 10 West Ferry Street Operations LLC

2025-10-16T09:00:10-08:00

A restaurant and bar in Pennsylvania employed bartenders and servers who participated in a tip pool, which was allegedly distributed in part to a salaried manager, contrary to federal and state wage laws. An employee who worked there from September 2021 to December 2022 filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). The claims centered on the manager’s alleged receipt of tip-pool funds intended for bartenders. The plaintiff sought damages and styled the case as a hybrid action: an FLSA collective action under § 216(b) and a Rule 23(b)(3) class action for the state law claim. The parties stipulated to conditional certification of an FLSA collective, and notice was sent to potential members, ten of whom opted in. After discovery, the parties reached a settlement agreement, proposing a Rule 23(b)(3) class settlement that would release wage-and-hour claims, including unasserted FLSA claims, for all class members who did not opt out. The District Court held a hearing focused on whether class members who had not opted into the FLSA collective could be required to release FLSA claims through the class settlement. The District Court denied preliminary approval, reasoning that § 216(b) prohibited such releases, and denied reconsideration, certifying the legal question for interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the certified question de novo. It held that § 216(b) of the FLSA establishes only the mechanism for litigating FLSA claims, not the conditions for waiving them, and does not prohibit the release of unasserted FLSA claims in a Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out class settlement. The Court vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for a full fairness inquiry under Rule 23. View "Lundeen v. 10 West Ferry Street Operations LLC" on Justia Law

Handal v. Innovative Industrial Properties Inc

2025-10-15T09:00:11-08:00

A real estate investment trust that specializes in purchasing and leasing properties to cannabis companies was defrauded by one of its tenants, Kings Garden, which submitted fraudulent reimbursement requests for capital improvements. The trust paid out over $48 million based on these requests before discovering irregularities, such as forged documentation and payments for work that was not performed. After uncovering the fraud, the trust sued Kings Garden and disclosed the situation to the market, which led to a decline in its stock price. Following these events, several shareholders filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The shareholders claimed that the trust and its executives made false or misleading statements about their due diligence, tenant monitoring, and the nature of reimbursements, and that these misstatements caused their losses when the fraud was revealed. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that while some statements could be misleading, the plaintiffs failed to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The Third Circuit held that most of the challenged statements were either non-actionable opinions, not false or misleading, or not sufficiently specific. For the one statement plausibly alleged to be false or misleading, the court found that the facts did not support a strong inference that the statement’s maker acted with scienter. The court also rejected the application of corporate scienter and found no basis for control-person liability under Section 20(a) in the absence of a primary violation. View "Handal v. Innovative Industrial Properties Inc" on Justia Law

Erie Indemnity Co v. Stephenson

2025-10-14T09:00:12-08:00

A group of insurance policyholders, known as subscribers, challenged the actions of a company that manages a reciprocal insurance exchange. The subscribers alleged that the company, acting as attorney-in-fact, breached its fiduciary duty by setting its management fee at the maximum allowed percentage and by failing to implement procedures to address conflicts of interest in 2019 and 2020. These claims arose after the company had previously changed its fee practices, which had already prompted earlier lawsuits by other subscribers over different time periods and types of fees. Prior to the current appeal, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania had dismissed earlier lawsuits—Beltz and Ritz—on grounds including the statute of limitations and claim preclusion. In the Ritz case, the court found that the claims were precluded because they could have been brought in the earlier Beltz litigation, and that the parties were in privity. The Stephenson plaintiffs, whose claims were based on later events, filed suit in state court. The company then sought and obtained a preliminary injunction from the District Court to prevent the Stephenson plaintiffs from proceeding, arguing that the prior federal judgments had preclusive effect. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The Third Circuit held that the prior federal judgments did not have claim or issue preclusive effect over the Stephenson plaintiffs’ claims, as those claims were based on events that occurred after the earlier lawsuits were filed. The court concluded that the District Court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction and vacated the order, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Erie Indemnity Co v. Stephenson" on Justia Law

USA v. Cuevas-Almonte

2025-10-14T09:00:11-08:00

Two men were apprehended by the United States Coast Guard in international waters south of Puerto Rico after being observed jettisoning bales of cocaine from a vessel that lacked any indication of nationality. The Coast Guard recovered approximately 306 kilograms of cocaine and eventually transported the men, including the appellant, to St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The government asserted that the men were never brought to Puerto Rico, though the appellant disputed this. A grand jury in the District of the Virgin Islands indicted the appellant on multiple drug trafficking charges under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), as well as related offenses. The appellant moved to dismiss the indictment for improper venue, arguing that the MDLEA’s “any district” venue provision was unconstitutional and that venue was proper in Puerto Rico, where he claimed he was first brought. He also sought a pretrial evidentiary hearing on venue and the issuance of subpoenas for Coast Guard witnesses. The United States District Court of the Virgin Islands denied these motions, holding that the MDLEA’s venue provision was constitutional and that the Virgin Islands was a proper venue. The court also found that mere passage through Puerto Rico’s territorial waters did not constitute being “first brought” there under 18 U.S.C. § 3238, and denied the request for an evidentiary hearing, finding no colorable factual dispute that would affect the outcome. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decisions. The Third Circuit held that the MDLEA’s “any district” venue provision is constitutional, both facially and as applied, for offenses committed on the high seas. The court also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a pretrial evidentiary hearing on venue. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders. View "USA v. Cuevas-Almonte" on Justia Law

Thieme v. Warden Fort Dix FCI

2025-10-08T09:00:12-08:00

A federal inmate serving a 210-month sentence challenged the method used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to calculate his good conduct time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018. The inmate argued that, following the amendments, he should receive a full 54 days of good conduct time credit for the last six months of his sentence, rather than a prorated amount. The BOP, however, interpreted the amended statute to require prorating the credit for any partial year, resulting in the inmate receiving 26 days of credit for the final six months instead of 54. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the inmate’s habeas petition. The court found that the plain language of the amended statute allowed for proration of good conduct time credits for partial years. As an alternative basis, the District Court also relied on Chevron deference to uphold the BOP’s interpretation. The court rejected the inmate’s additional claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause, finding them either precluded by statute or inapplicable to the rulemaking context. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the First Step Act’s amendments, while deleting the word “prorated,” introduced language (“for each year”) that sets a rate of 54 days per year, thereby requiring proration for any partial year. The court concluded that the statute’s natural reading supports the BOP’s method of prorating credits for the last portion of a sentence. The Third Circuit also rejected the inmate’s constitutional and APA-based arguments, and found no basis for applying the rule of lenity. View "Thieme v. Warden Fort Dix FCI" on Justia Law

Montanez v. Price

2025-10-08T09:00:11-08:00

Jose Montanez, an inmate in Pennsylvania state prisons, experienced sudden paralysis and incontinence while incarcerated at SCI-Huntingdon. After collapsing in his cell, he was taken to the medical unit but received minimal assistance and was denied hospital care. He was left in his cell, unable to walk or reach the toilet, for three days before receiving an MRI that revealed spinal cord stenosis and edema, necessitating surgery. Following surgery and a brief rehabilitation, Montanez was returned to prison, where he suffered a fall and herniated a disc. He alleged that prison medical staff denied him adequate pain medication and accommodations for his disabilities, such as a double mattress, mobility aids, and access to physical therapy. Montanez filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, asserting claims under the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its employees, Wellpath Care LLC (a private medical contractor), and Wellpath employees. The District Court dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding the complaint insufficient to state a claim and denying leave to amend, citing futility. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Montanez’s complaint, liberally construed, stated viable Eighth Amendment claims against certain individual defendants (Dr. Mahli, Nurse Wagman, and Administrator Ellers), a Section 504 RA claim against Wellpath, and ADA and RA claims against the Commonwealth. The court found that the District Court erred in dismissing these claims and in denying leave to amend for other claims, as amendment would not be futile. The Third Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to allow Montanez to amend his complaint. View "Montanez v. Price" on Justia Law

Perrong v. Bradford

2025-10-06T09:00:25-08:00

A member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives used public funds and the resources of the House Democratic Caucus to send five pre-recorded, automated phone calls to constituents. These calls provided information about public health resources, employment opportunities, and community events. The calls were approved and administered by House staff, who determined that each served a clear legislative purpose and public benefit. The recipient of these calls, Andrew Perrong, filed suit, alleging that the calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which generally prohibits automated or pre-recorded calls made by “any person.” The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the legislator’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that the legislator was a “person” under the TCPA and could be sued in his individual capacity, even though the calls were made as part of his official duties. The District Court also found that the suit was not barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, reasoning that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was not the real party in interest, and that qualified immunity did not apply because the statutory prohibition was clear. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the statutory question and the immunity defenses. The Third Circuit held that the TCPA’s use of the term “person” does not clearly and unmistakably include state legislators acting in their official capacity when performing legitimate government functions. The court reasoned that longstanding interpretive presumptions, constitutional federalism principles, and statutory context all support excluding such official acts from the statute’s reach. As a result, the court reversed the District Court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the TCPA’s robocall restriction does not apply to calls made by state legislators in connection with their legitimate government functions. View "Perrong v. Bradford" on Justia Law

Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Secretary US Dept & Health and Human Services

2025-10-06T09:00:23-08:00

Novo Nordisk, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, challenged the implementation of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The Program requires the Department of Health and Human Services, through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure drugs covered by Medicare. In the first round of selections, CMS grouped six of Novo Nordisk’s insulin aspart products as a single “negotiation-eligible drug” and selected them for price negotiation. Novo Nordisk signed the required agreements to participate but subsequently filed suit, arguing that CMS’s grouping of its products and the procedures used to implement the Program violated statutory and constitutional provisions. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review CMS’s decision to treat the six products as one drug due to a statutory bar on judicial review. It also held that Novo Nordisk lacked standing to challenge the identification of more than ten drugs for the initial pricing period. The court rejected Novo Nordisk’s claims under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the Due Process Clause, the nondelegation doctrine, and the First Amendment, concluding that the Program did not deprive the company of a protected property interest, that Congress provided an intelligible principle to guide CMS, and that the Program primarily regulated conduct rather than speech. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that the statutory bar on judicial review precluded consideration of Novo Nordisk’s challenge to the grouping of its products. The court also held that CMS was authorized to implement the Program through guidance for the initial years without notice and comment rulemaking, that the Act did not violate the nondelegation doctrine or the Due Process Clause, and that Novo Nordisk’s First Amendment claim was foreclosed by precedent. View "Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Secretary US Dept & Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

Amos v. Attorney General United States of America

2025-10-01T09:00:10-08:00

A Nigerian citizen who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2005 was placed in removal proceedings after being convicted of conspiracy to commit passport fraud. He had lived in the U.S. for many years, had a long-term partner, and was the father of four U.S. citizen children. His conviction stemmed from a scheme to obtain fraudulent U.S. passports for noncitizens, for which he was sentenced to 27 months in prison. After serving his sentence and briefly fleeing to Canada, he was returned to the U.S. and charged as inadmissible for committing a crime involving moral turpitude. In removal proceedings, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming past persecution and fear of future harm in Nigeria due to his former union activities and threats from a militia group. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him inadmissible, denied all forms of relief, and determined that his conviction constituted a particularly serious crime, barring asylum and withholding. The IJ also found his and his partner’s testimony not credible and denied CAT relief, concluding he had not shown a likelihood of torture with government acquiescence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing with the IJ’s findings and further holding that the absence of an interpreter did not violate due process, that the conviction was a particularly serious crime, and that he was not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the BIA misapplied the legal standard for determining a particularly serious crime by failing to consider the elements of the underlying substantive offense in the conspiracy conviction. The court also found that the BIA did not properly analyze the CAT claim under the required legal framework and failed to consider eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility. The court denied the due process claim but vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, ordering a stay of removal pending the outcome. View "Amos v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

United States v. Shvets

2025-09-29T09:00:25-08:00

Natalya Shvets was convicted by a jury in 2014 for healthcare fraud and conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, stemming from her role as a nurse at Home Care Hospice, Inc. (HCH). Evidence showed she and other employees created false records for high-priced “continuous care” services, resulting in fraudulent bills submitted to Medicare. Shvets was ordered to pay $253,196 in restitution, jointly and severally with eight other defendants, for her involvement in 52 false bills. The broader scheme allegedly caused $16.2 million in losses to Medicare, with seventeen individuals ordered to pay varying restitution amounts. After sentencing in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Shvets moved for an accounting and to declare her restitution judgment satisfied, arguing that payments by herself and her jointly liable co-defendants had collectively exceeded $253,196. The District Court, relying on United States v. Sheets, held that Shvets’s judgment would not be satisfied until she personally paid the full amount or until all defendants collectively paid $16.2 million. The Clerk of Court, using a complex allocation method, also reported Shvets’s balance as outstanding, but the District Court did not resolve whether the Clerk’s method was correct. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Court held that sentencing judges may issue “hybrid” restitution orders under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, combining joint and several liability with apportioned liability. The Court found the District Court erred by applying the Sheets rule, which conflicted with the language of Shvets’s judgment. The Third Circuit directed the District Court to determine whether the Clerk’s accounting method is fair and appropriate, and to decide if Shvets’s restitution judgment has been satisfied. View "United States v. Shvets" on Justia Law

Bobrick Washroom Equipment Inc v. Scranton Products Inc

2025-09-26T09:00:10-08:00

Scranton Products sued Bobrick Washroom Equipment in 2014, alleging false advertising regarding the fire compliance of Scranton’s toilet partitions. Bobrick counterclaimed, asserting Scranton’s advertising was itself false. Scranton voluntarily dismissed its claims, and the parties entered into a settlement agreement that included a provision waiving their rights to appeal any court orders arising from the agreement or enforcement motions. The District Court approved the agreement, dismissed the case, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Subsequently, both parties filed enforcement motions related to compliance with the agreement, leading to a public evidentiary hearing. During post-hearing proceedings, Scranton moved to seal certain documents, and the District Court issued two sealing orders: one temporarily sealing documents during the pendency of enforcement motions, and another indefinitely sealing them after the motions were resolved. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied all enforcement motions and issued the second sealing order, directing the parties to confer about sealing and stating that, absent agreement, the status quo of sealing would remain. Bobrick appealed both sealing orders, arguing that the indefinite sealing was overbroad and contrary to the public’s right of access to judicial records. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the first, temporary sealing order because it was no longer in effect, rendering the appeal moot. The court found it had jurisdiction to review the second, indefinite sealing order under the collateral order doctrine, as it was final and appealable. However, the Third Circuit enforced the appellate waiver in the settlement agreement, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the appeal and affirming the District Court’s indefinite sealing order. The court also denied Bobrick’s alternative request for a writ of mandamus. View "Bobrick Washroom Equipment Inc v. Scranton Products Inc" on Justia Law

USA v. Josey

2025-09-19T09:00:11-08:00

The defendant was previously convicted in North Carolina of indecent liberties with a child, which required him to register as a sex offender under federal law. He complied with federal registration requirements after moving to New York in 2017 and again after moving within New York in 2018. However, he failed to comply with New York’s separate annual address verification requirement after 2018. In 2023, after moving to Pennsylvania, he also failed to update his federal sex offender registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). He was indicted and pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to update his federal registration after interstate travel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, relying on the Presentence Investigation Report, calculated the defendant’s criminal history score by including three prior sentences from 2010 and 2011. The Probation Office and the District Court reasoned that the “commencement of the instant offense” for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines’ criminal history look-back period included not only the conduct underlying the federal conviction but also “relevant conduct,” specifically the earlier New York state registration violations. This interpretation resulted in a higher criminal history category and a longer advisory sentencing range. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. The Third Circuit held that the phrase “commencement of the instant offense” in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e) unambiguously refers only to the start of the conduct constituting the offense of conviction, not to other “relevant conduct.” Therefore, the District Court erred by including the earlier state-law violations in its calculation. The Third Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing using the correct criminal history category. View "USA v. Josey" on Justia Law

USA v. McCormack

2025-09-18T09:00:11-08:00

In this case, the defendant broke into two gun stores in 2016, stealing a total of sixty-nine guns, a digital video recorder, and a cash register. Many of the stolen guns were later recovered from the defendant’s residence and vehicle. The thefts caused property damage to the stores, and the stores had to close for a week to recover from the incidents. The defendant pleaded guilty to stealing guns from federal firearms licensees and conspiracy, and as part of his plea agreement, he agreed to pay restitution. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania initially ordered restitution without accounting for insurance payments or the return of some stolen guns. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded the case for recalculation of the restitution amount, instructing the District Court to subtract any reimbursements. On remand, after an evidentiary hearing with testimony from the store owners and a federal agent, the District Court ordered the defendant to pay $57,044.96 in restitution, including the full retail value of the stolen guns and a week’s worth of lost income for each store. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that the District Court erred by awarding restitution for lost income, as this resulted in double-counting the value of the stolen guns and included consequential damages not permitted under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The Third Circuit vacated the lost-income portion of the restitution award and remanded for correction, but affirmed the remainder of the award, finding that the evidence supported the calculation of the value of the stolen guns and property damage. View "USA v. McCormack" on Justia Law

USA v. Curry

2025-09-16T09:00:42-08:00

Rajeri Curry was investigated for drug trafficking after purchasing heroin and fentanyl in bulk from two brothers, Al-Tariq and Shadee Brown. Following a fatal overdose linked to drugs Curry sold, police arrested her and seized her iPhone. After being read her Miranda rights, Curry requested a lawyer. Detectives then asked for consent to search her phone, explaining that refusal would lead to a warrant and possible data loss. Concerned about losing her files, Curry provided her passcode and signed a consent form. The detectives did not question her about the charged offenses during this interaction. Curry was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for conspiracy to distribute heroin and fentanyl, possession with intent to distribute, and distribution resulting in death. Before trial, she moved to suppress evidence obtained from her phone, arguing it was inadmissible due to a violation of the Edwards v. Arizona rule. The District Court denied the motion, admitted the evidence, and allowed the prosecution to introduce Curry’s prior drug convictions. After trial, the jury convicted Curry of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, but did not reach a verdict on the distribution resulting in death count. The District Court denied Curry’s motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced her as a career offender to 216 months’ imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that evidence derived from Curry’s phone was not subject to suppression under Edwards v. Arizona because Curry voluntarily provided her passcode and consented to the search. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment, finding no error in the denial of the suppression motion, the sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy, the admission of prior convictions under Rule 404(b), and the application of the career-offender sentencing enhancement. View "USA v. Curry" on Justia Law

In re: Yellow Corporation

2025-09-16T09:00:41-08:00

Yellow Corporation, a major trucking company, ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy in 2023. As a result, it withdrew from several multiemployer pension plans, triggering withdrawal liability—an amount owed to the pension plans to cover unfunded vested benefits for employees. The pension plans, which had received substantial federal funds under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) to stabilize their finances, filed claims against Yellow’s bankruptcy estate for withdrawal liability. The dispute centered on how much of the ARPA funds should be counted as plan assets when calculating Yellow’s liability, as well as whether certain contractual terms could require Yellow to pay a higher withdrawal liability than statutory minimums. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware reviewed the claims. It upheld two regulations issued by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC): the Phase-In Regulation, which requires ARPA funds to be counted as plan assets gradually over time, and the No-Receivables Regulation, which bars plans from counting ARPA funds as assets before they are actually received. The Bankruptcy Court found these regulations to be valid exercises of PBGC’s authority and not arbitrary or capricious. It also ruled that two pension plans could enforce a contractual provision requiring Yellow to pay withdrawal liability at a higher, agreed-upon rate, rather than the rate based solely on its actual contributions. On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order. The Third Circuit held that the PBGC’s regulations were valid under ARPA and ERISA, as Congress had expressly delegated authority to the PBGC to set reasonable conditions on the allocation of plan assets and withdrawal liability. The court also held that pension plans could enforce contractual terms requiring higher withdrawal liability, as the statutory scheme sets a floor, not a ceiling, for such liability. View "In re: Yellow Corporation" on Justia Law