The Tapia Tap Dance: When Does Considering Rehabilitation in Imposing a Sentence Violate Tapia?

BACKGROUND

In 1984, Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act, as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. The Act, among other things, abolished federal parole in all but a few instances and created the United States Sentencing Commission. It also required courts to consider the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)—which include the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the defendant, the justification for the sentence, the kinds of available sentences, any relevant policies promulgated by the Sentencing Commission, the need for consistency, and the value of any potential restitution to victims.

However, §3582 of the Act went one step further. In a nod to concerns about excessive prison sentences imposed during the height of the War on Drugs, it provided that the above factors should be considered while also “recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.” In Tapia v. United States (2011), the Supreme Court interpreted that provision of the Act to mean that “the Sentencing Reform Act precludes federal courts from imposing or lengthening a prison term in order to promote a criminal defendant’s rehabilitation.”

THE ISSUE

What is the standard for determining when a sentencing court violates Tapia? When a court considers rehabilitation in imposing a sentence at all, does it violate Tapia? Or is Tapia only violated when a sentencing court uses rehabilitation as the determining factor?

THE SPLIT

As it turns out, every Circuit in the country—save for the D.C. Circuit—has taken a position on this issue. They’re divided into two camps.

The Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits apply an easy-to-satisfy standard: they hold that Tapia is violated when the sentencing judge even considers rehabilitation or bases his sentence even in part on rehabilitation. As articulated by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Thornton (2017), for example, “A rule requiring reversal only when rehabilitation is the sole motivation would not make sense. The federal sentencing statute mandates that judges consider other factors. . . . Therefore, there will almost always be some valid reasons advanced by the district court for imposing the sentence issued.” The Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Vandergrift (2014) arrived at the same conclusion, and based its analysis on an interpretation “faithful to Tapia’s reasoning.” It noted that the Supreme Court held that sentencing courts “‘should consider the specified rationales of punishment except for rehabilitation’” when “determining whether to impose or lengthen a sentence of imprisonment.” Accordingly, any consideration of rehabilitation is improper.

The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits come out differently. For a sentencing court to run afoul of Tapia, they require a demonstration that rehabilitation was the determining factor in the sentencing court’s decision to impose or enhance a sentence in order to find a Tapia violation. They, too, base their rationale in the Supreme Court’s language in Tapia. For example, in United States v. Garza (2018), the Fifth Circuit noted:

in Tapia the Court made clear that “[a] court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.” A district court also may legitimately “urge the [Bureau of Prisons] to place an offender in a prison treatment program.” However, when the district court’s concern for rehabilitative needs goes further—when the sentencing record discloses “that the court may have calculated the length of [the defendant’s] sentence to ensure that she receive certain rehabilitative services”—§ 3582(a) has been violated.

Similarly, in United States v. Bennett (2012), the Fourth Circuit focused on looking at the specific error that the Supreme Court was attempting to remedy in Tapia. To glean the Supreme Court’s meaning, it looked at the sentencing court’s proceedings in Tapia and observed that the district court judge said that the “‘number one’ consideration ‘[was] the need to provide treatment.’” It observed that the Tapia decision was a “close question . . . whether the rehabilitation rationale drove the sentencing decision,” despite the sentencing court’s brazen discussion of rehabilitation. Accordingly, the Court couldn’t possibly mean that a district court judge’s mere discussion of rehabilitation ran afoul of Tapia.

The Third Circuit, which arrived at a conclusion on the proper interpretation of Tapia only ten days ago, articulated a related—but distinct—rationale. It noted in United States v. Schonewolf (2018) that that the first approach, taken by the Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, would “risk a chilling effect on district courts ‘discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison,’ a subject that ‘a court properly may address.’”

LOOKING FORWARD

Given that virtually every Circuit in the country has arrived at a conclusion on the meaning of Tapia—and that those meanings differ and are supported by different rationales—the Supreme Court has a strong incentive to take an appeal from one of these cases to resolve the split. Even more persuasively, the Sentencing Reform Act was intended to promote consistency in sentencing across the country. It’s a cruel twist of irony for the drafters of the Act that it, in turned, spurred even more inconsistency.

Do Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction over Civil Actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Immigrants Alleging Wrongful Removal from the United States?

The Federal Tort Claims Act

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows those who have suffered an injury, or whose property is damaged, to file a claim with the federal government for reimbursement for that injury or damage. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2674, the federal government recognizes its liability for the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of its employees acting within the scope of their official duties. The FTCA positions the United States—not the individual employee—as the defendant, and transfers all liability to the federal government. Therefore, the United States is liable the same way that a private party would be liable in a normal civil action.

The Issue

Two cases, each with similar factual backgrounds, help illustrate the question at hand. In both cases, the plaintiffs—Lopez Silva and Claudio Anaya Arce—were erroneously deported and subsequently sued the federal government under the FTCA. In Silva’s case, he was a Mexican citizen who resided in the United States as a lawful permanent resident since 1992. After he was convicted of two criminal offenses in Minnesota, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against him in 2012. Silva appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which issued a stay of Silva’s removal while his appeal was pending. However, in July 2013, DHS mistakenly removed Silva to Mexico before the BIA heard his appeal. DHS subsequently returned Silva to the United States several months later. An immigration judge subsequently granted Silva’s application for cancellation of his removal—allowing him to lawfully remain in the country.

In Arce’s case, he was apprehended by Customs and Border Patrol and detained in Adelanto, California in April 2014. He expressed a fear of harm if he was removed to Mexico, but an asylum officer determined that he had not demonstrated a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. This decision was affirmed by an immigration judge on February 4, 2015, and the DHS began the process of removing him to Mexico. However, on February 6, Arce filed an emergency petition for review and a motion for a stay of removal with the Ninth Circuit. The court immediately issued a temporary stay of removal, but Arce was removed to Mexico later that day—despite the fact that Arce’s counsel put DHS on notice of the stay. Arce remained in Mexico until February 20, when he was returned to the United States.

Both Silva and Arce sued the federal government for harm arising from their unlawful removal. The District Courts of Minnesota and the Central District of California dismissed both cases on the ground that Section 242(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act deprived them of jurisdiction. Specifically, they held Section 242(g), which applies to agency decisions or actions to “commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders” divested them of subject-matter jurisdiction. Silva and Arce appealed to the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, respectively.

The Circuit Split

Both cases raise the question: do federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions brought under the FTCA by immigrants alleging wrongful removal from the United States?

In Silva v. United States (2017), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision in a 2-1 ruling that it lacked jurisdiction under the FTCA. The court held that Silva’s claims were directly connected to the execution of the removal order, and that Section 242(g) applied to bar the plaintiff’s civil action.

Judge Kelly dissented, however, and argued that the United States Supreme Court rejected the assumption that Section 242(g) covered that kind of deportation claim in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999). She would have held that the mandatory automatic stay in Silva’s case “suspended the source of authority for the agency to act” on the removal order and therefore “temporarily divested the order of enforceability.” Accordingly, Silva’s claims did not arise “from the government’s decision or action to execute a removal order,” because a valid removal order did not exist at the time he was removed. She noted that the Third Circuit had held in Garcia v. Attorney General (2009), that Section 242(g) doesn’t apply when the petitioner is challenging the government’s authority to commence removal proceedings, not the discretionary decision to commence proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit charted a different course than the Eighth Circuit, and instead embrace the position that Judge Kelly articulated in dissent. In Arce v. United States (2018), the court rejected the government’s argument that Arce’s claims were foreclosed by Section 242(g) because they arose from the Attorney General’s decision or action to execute the removal order. Citing Judge Kelly’s dissent in Silva, the court held that the statute does not “sweep as broadly as the government contends.” Arce, it found, was not attacking the removal itself but the authority of the Attorney General to execute the removal order in light of the stay of removal that the court had issued.

Looking Forward

Though these cases have mostly flown under the radar—especially given the recency of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion—they raise important ramifications for those who wish to bring claims under the FTCA for wrongful removal. In many ways, this split is a perfect embodiment of the reason that the Supreme Court wishes to avoid circuit splits in the first place. In some parts of the country, the federal government is financially liable for actions that it is not liable for in other parts of the country, raising the need for the Supreme Court to resolve the split.

Is the Board of Immigration Appeals Entitled to Chevron Deference When Interpreting What Constitutes Child Abuse?

BACKGROUND

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council established a framework for determining whether the decisions of administrative bodies are entitled to judicial deference. In very simplified terms, Chevron states that, when a statute is ambiguous, the decisions of administrative agencies should be granted judicial deference unless they are arbitrary or capricious. This determination is made in two steps. First, the court must determine whether the plain language of the statute in question is ambiguous. Second, if the language is determined to be ambiguous, the court must determine whether the administrative agency’s decision was arbitrary or capricious.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is the “highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws,” and has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions rendered by immigration judges. In this capacity, the BIA often finds itself interpreting the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) during immigration proceedings.

In the Ninth Circuit case Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions (2018), Marcelo Martinez-Cedillo was convicted of felony child endangerment under California Penal Code §273a(a). Mr. Martinez-Cedillo was ordered removed from the United States on the grounds that his conviction constituted “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i). On appeal, the primary issue—and the source of the circuit split—was whether BIA’s interpretation of “child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment,” as written in the INA, was entitled to Chevron deference.

THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S CHEVRON ANALYSIS

The Ninth Circuit held, in a 2-1 decision, that the BIA’s interpretation of “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” was entitled to Chevron deference. Writing for the majority, Judge Bybee acknowledged that, regarding Chevron Step One, “every circuit court to have considered [the definition of “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment] noted its ambiguity,” and proceeded to Chevron Step Two without much discussion. Under Chevron Step Two, Judge Bybee determined that the BIA’s interpretation was “reasonable and entitled to deference.”

In dissent, Judge Wardlaw characterized the BIA’s interpretation as “unreasonable,” noting that the BIA’s definition had “inexplicably changed its generic definition three times in the past two decades.” Judge Wardlaw, quoting the Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya (2018), further stated that the BIA’s “generic definition of the ‘crime of child abuse’ is so imprecise, it violates ‘essential’ tenets of due process, most specifically ‘the prohibition of vagueness in criminal statutes.’”

THE CIRCUIT SPLIT

Here, the Ninth Circuit joins the Second, Third, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the BIA’s interpretation of “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” should be granted judicial deference under Chevron. On the other hand, the Tenth Circuit held that the BIA’s interpretation should not be granted judicial deference.

In the Second Circuit case Florez v. Holder (2015), the BIA determined that Nilfor Yosel Florez’s action of driving while intoxicated with children in the back seat of his vehicle constituted “a crime of child abuse,” noting that the BIA’s interpretation of what constituted “a crime of child abuse” was “intentionally broad.” Of note in this case, Florez’s children were not harmed during the incident that led to his arrest and order of removal. The court determined that the BIA’s determination that actual injury to a child was not a required element of this definition was a reasonable one.

In the Third Circuit case Mondragon-Gonzales v. Attorney General of the United States (2018), Judge Vanaskie noted that the portion of the INA that listed general categories of crimes “was enacted…as part of an aggressive legislative movement to expand the criminal grounds of deportability … and to create a comprehensive statutory scheme to cover crimes against children in particular.” Similarly, in the Eleventh Circuit case Martinez v. United States Attorney General (2011), the court granted deference to the BIA’s determination that proof of actual harm or injury to the child by the petitioner was not required.

But the Tenth Circuit disagreed—in Ibarra v. Holder (2013), the court refused to grant deference to the BIA’s determination that a Colorado conviction for “child abuse—negligence—no injury” constituted a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under the INA. The court noted that the plain language of the statute applied only to crimes, but that not all states criminalize certain acts of child neglect, particularly in the absence of mens rea beyond criminal neglect or in the absence of proof of actual injury to the child. The court reasoned that in effect, the BIA’s interpretation of “a crime of child abuse” and its subsequent application would vary from one jurisdiction to another, depending on whether certain acts of child neglect were criminalized.

LOOKING FORWARD

With at least five circuits speaking to whether the BIA’s interpretation of “a crime of child abuse” should be granted judicial deference, the issue is ripe for review by the Supreme Court. However, these decisions point to a larger problem—the vagueness of some of the language in the INA combined with the latitude granted to the BIA, which often acts as the final voice on deportation decisions, to make broad interpretations of certain portions of the statute. It is especially important to note that these immigration decisions are not limited to undocumented immigrants—for example, Mr. Florez, the defendant in Florez, was a legal permanent resident at the time that his removal was ordered. In today’s climate, where deportation is all but actively encouraged, two additional steps besides eventual Supreme Court review would be particularly helpful: (1) clarification of the language of the statute by Congress, and (2) closer scrutiny by courts as to whether the BIA’s interpretations—not just limited to the BIA’s interpretation of child abuse—have become overly broad, especially in light of the administration’s anti-immigrant stance.

Reading the Fifth: Supreme Court Exercises its Right to Remain Silent on What Comprises a “Criminal Case”

BACKGROUND

The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to bear witness against themselves in a criminal case. Courts have struggled with the scope of this protection, particularly regarding what comprises a “criminal case.” Does the term extend to pre-trial proceedings, such as a bail hearing? Has a person’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination been violated if the compelled statement in question is never used in a court of law?

Over the past thirty years, the Supreme Court has never directly resolved the question of what constitutes a “criminal case.” In dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Supreme Court indicated that the Fifth Amendment right was merely a trial right. But later, in Mitchell v. United States (1999) the Supreme Court indicated that the right extended to sentencing hearings.

The question of what comprises a criminal case was more recently addressed in Chavez v. Martinez (2003). In his plurality opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas declared that a statement was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where the individual first hadn’t been charged with a crime and where the individual’s statements had not been used in a criminal case. Thomas further wrote:

“Mere coercion doesn’t violate the self-incrimination clause minus use of compelled statements in a criminal case against the witness…a ‘criminal case’ at the very least requires the initiation of legal proceedings.”

Three other justices disagreed, arguing that self-incrimination is complete the moment a confession is compelled, regardless of whether the statement is used at trial.

After the opinions in Chavez were released, a circuit split developed over the definition of a criminal case under the Fifth Amendment.

THE ISSUE

Does the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination include statements compelled in pre-trial proceedings?

THE SPLIT

The Third, Fourth and Fifth Circuits resolved this question in favor of Justice Thomas’s view, holding that the right against self-incrimination is only a trial right. In Renda v. King (2003), the Third Circuit determined that questioning while in police custody without providing Miranda warnings is not a Fifth Amendment violation if the individual is never charged with a crime and their responses are never used in a trial.

But on the other hand, in Vogt v. City of Hays (2017) the Tenth Circuit resolved this question in favor of a broader reading of the term “criminal case,” allowing the term to include certain pre-trial proceedings. The Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits take a similar view of the right against self-incrimination.

The facts of Vogt are unusual. In Vogt, a police officer for the City of Hays admitted during an interview with a neighboring police department that he had illegally retained a knife obtained during his employment as a police officer. The neighboring police department agreed to hire Vogt on the condition that he report the illegal retention of the knife to the Hays police department. Upon Vogt’s admission, Hays initiated a criminal investigation against him. The charges were dropped, but Vogt sued, claiming that the state violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by inducing him to confess.

The Tenth Circuit in Vogt concluded—after examining the text of the Fifth Amendment and the Founders’ intent—that the right against self-incrimination includes pre-trial proceedings. The court noted that the Fifth Amendment makes no mention of “trial” or “criminal prosecution,” instead using the term “criminal case.” The court pointed to Counselman v. Hitchcock (1892) wherein the government argued that a witness could not invoke the Fifth Amendment in a grand jury proceeding because it was not a “criminal case.” The Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument there, holding that the “criminal case” of the Fifth Amendment is a broader term than the Sixth Amendment’s “criminal prosecution.”

Additionally, to determine the meaning of “criminal case,” the Tenth Circuit consulted the most prominent dictionary of the Framers’ era: purportedly Noah Webster’s An American Dictionary of the English Language. In this dictionary, “case” was defined as “a cause or suit in court.” This definition, where “suit” is understood to be nearly synonymous with “cause,” indicates that the Framers understood the criminal case to encompass more than merely the trial. From these facts, Tenth Circuit concluded that the right against self-incrimination is more than just a trial right.

LOOKING FORWARD

The City of Hays appealed the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Vogt, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 28, 2017. The case was argued before the Court on February 20, 2018; however, whether this split will be resolved by the Vogt appeal is yet to be seen. Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor both noted the case was “odd,” and Justice Breyer even questioned whether the strange and distinguishing facts of Vogt made it an appropriate one for the Court to take. The Supreme Court has the option to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, but it is likely that the Court will publish an opinion resolving this constitutional issue soon.

On a constitutional question of this magnitude, let’s hope the Supreme Court doesn’t choose to plead the Fifth.

Does Registration Mean Registration: When Can Copyright Holders Sue?

Background

Copyright law protects the exclusive rights of creators of works—like novels, songs, computer software, and even fictional characters. These rights include the distribution and reproduction of copyrighted works and the power to assign or transfer those rights. In the United States, the copyright symbol “©” may serve to provide notice to potential infringers that the creator’s work is protected. But the symbol does not mean that the federal government specifically granted it copyright protections. Copyrights do not need to be registered with the federal government to be protected. Original works are under copyright protection once created and “fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” The owner of a copyright may register it at any time during (or before) the term of the copyright – usually 70 years after an individual creator’s death.

Issue

While registration is not required for copyright protection, it is required for filing a lawsuit to enforce a copyright. Before the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright law varied from state to state and so did the conditions necessary for copyright enforcement. The act created a uniform system of copyright enforcement. Section 411 of the Copyright Act provides that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.” The statute prescribes steps in the registration process but does not define when “registration” has occurred to allow a copyright owner’s infringement suit. Courts are split on whether “registration” occurs upon submission of an application for registration (the “application approach”) or upon approval of the registration application (the “registration approach”).

The Split

In Cosmetic Ideas v. IAC (2010), the Ninth Circuit adopted the application approach, which relies more on the purpose of the statute than on a plain language interpretation of the text. In trying to interpret “registration” under § 411 of the Copyright Act, the Ninth Circuit started with the plain language of the statute and referred to § 101 of the Act which defines “registration” as “a registration of a claim in the original or the renewed and extended term of copyright.” The court concluded that the definition was “unhelpful” and provided no guidance in interpreting the meaning of “registration.” The court then examined the statute as a whole, finding ambiguity—it then concluded that the Act’s “plain language” unequivocally supported either interpretation, and that it must “go beyond . . . the plain language to determine which approach better carries out the purpose of the statute.” Ultimately, the court adopted the application approach, finding that its efficiency accomplished the central purpose of registration – a robust national register of existing copyrights.

On the other hand, in Fourth Estate Pub. v. Wall-Street.com (2017), the Eleventh Circuit adopted the registration approach. In Fourth Estate, the court based its reasoning primarily on the language of the Copyright Act. It reasoned that the text “makes clear” that the registration approach is correct. The Eleventh Circuit rejected appeals to the legislative history and the policy of the Act, finding that the Act’s words “are unambiguous” and no further inquiry is required.

Looking Forward

Despite the registration requirement’s prior treatment by circuit courts as jurisdictional, the US Supreme Court held in Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010) that not fulfilling the registration requirement does not deprive a federal court of subject matter jurisdiction over a case. However, the Court in Reed Elsevier did not tackle the circuits’ different approaches to defining registration. A resolution may nonetheless be on its way thanks to the Fourth Estate case. A petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court filed in October 2017 is currently pending. The Court has invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States on the case. There is a good chance that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari given that the case involves statutory interpretation and there is a clear circuit split. Otherwise, an amendment to the statute may be needed to resolve the issue.

 

Does Pre-Trial Detention Toll a Term of Supervised Release?

Supervised Release

For some people who are convicted of a criminal offense, a sentence can include a term of supervised release (also known as special or mandatory parole). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624, the federal supervised release statute, a term of supervised release begins on the day that a person is released into the custody of a parole officer. The federal supervised release statute also provides that the term of supervised release is tolled during any period where the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a different federal, state, or local crime.

The Issue

Jason Mont began a five-year period of supervised release on March 6, 2012. On June 1, 2016, Mr. Mont was arrested on state charges and held in pre-trial detention until he pleaded guilty in October 2016. In June 2017, Mr. Mont’s supervised release was revoked, and he was ordered to serve an additional 42 months for violating his supervised release. In United States v. Mont (2018), Mr. Mont claimed that the court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release, arguing that his supervised release ended on March 6, 2017 (five years after he was initially released). Following circuit precedent established by United States v. Goins (2008), the Sixth Circuit held that pretrial detention that leads to a conviction counts as time “in connection with a conviction,” as described in the federal statute.

The Split

Several circuits have spoken to whether time served in pretrial detention counts as time “in connection with a conviction” for the purposes of the federal supervised release statute, in addition to the Sixth Circuit’s previous ruling in Goins. The Fourth Circuit in United States v. Ide (2010), the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Molina-Gazca (2009), and the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Johnson (2009) have all held that pretrial detention counts for the purposes of the federal supervised release statute. In contrast, the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Marsh (2016) and the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Morales-Alejo (1999) held that time served in pretrial detention does not qualify.

The Ninth Circuit is the only circuit that has directly addressed the statutory language in the federal supervised release statute:

“A plain reading of this language…suggests that there must be an imprisonment resulting from or otherwise triggered by a criminal conviction. Pretrial detention does not fit this definition, because a person in pretrial detention has not yet been convicted and might never be convicted.”

In Mont, the Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected this interpretation.

Looking Forward

This case has not attracted much attention within the legal community since the Sixth Circuit’s ruling was handed down this past February, but it does have important ramifications for persons whose sentences include a period of supervised release. With six circuits having weighed in on opposite sides of a matter of federal statutory interpretation, the time is ripe for an aggrieved party to petition the Supreme Court for a definite ruling on this issue. Mr. Mont has ninety days from the date of the Sixth Circuit’s judgment to file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court – while this deadline has not passed, it is not yet clear whether he will file a petition. In the alternative, given that this issue arises out of different interpretations of a federal statute, Congress could pass a bill to amend the current statute and clarify whether pretrial detention that leads to a conviction counts as time served in connection with a conviction.

On an Electronic Soapbox: Is a Privately-Operated Public Access Television Channel Subject to the First Amendment?

The Issue

The First Amendment normally only limits and regulates governmental action, not the acts of private entities; therefore, First Amendment violation claims are only viable if they are against a state actor. But when does a private entity become a state actor for First Amendment purposes? Regarding public access television channels, this answer has remained unclear. Public access channels are set aside for public, educational, or governmental purposes and a cable system operator provides them at the request of local government. The Second Circuit recently held in Halleck v. Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. (2018) that a public access television station operated by a non-profit corporation is a public forum and considered a governmental actor for constitutional purposes. In making this determination, the Second Circuit acknowledged that it was in direct contrast with its sister D.C. Circuit’s decision in Alliance for Community Media v. FCC (1995).

The Split

In Halleck, two producers for the Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), a not-for-profit corporation designated as the operator of the public access channel by the Manhattan Borough President, were suspended after they produced content that presented MNN in a negative light. The producers brought a claim against MNN, stating that as a public access channel under municipal control, its employees were subject to First Amendment restrictions. The Second Circuit found in favor of the producers, analogizing a public access channel to “a speaker’s soapbox” and finding support in a concurring opinion written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Justice Ginsburg in Denver Area Educ. Telcoms. Consortium v. FCC (1996).

In Denver Area Educ. Telecoms. Consortium, the plurality opinion did not definitively resolve the classification of such channels as public fora. Instead, two opposing camps each articulated different views. On one side, Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg concluded that:

public fora do not have to be physical gathering places, nor are they limited to property owned by the government. Indeed, in the majority of jurisdictions, title to some of the most traditional of public fora, streets and sidewalks, remains in private hands…Public access channels are analogous; they are public fora even though they operate over property to which the cable operator holds title.

On the opposing side, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, and Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that because the channel was privately owned it could not be a public forum. As neither view held majority support, the issue remained unanswered by the Supreme Court.

In Alliance for Community Media, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a public access channel was not a public forum and, therefore, not subject to First Amendment restrictions. The court differentiated parks and streets—which it classified as examples of public fora—from public access channels because the channels “belong to private cable operators; are managed by them as part of their systems; and are among the products for which operators collect a fee from their subscribers.” In contrast to the reasoning in Halleck, the D.C. Circuit held that although a public access channel “must provide communications facilities to those who desire access for their own purposes,” it is not a public forum “in the First Amendment sense and does not transform the entity’s discretionary carriage decisions into decisions of the government.”

Looking to the Supreme Court for an answer

Labeling a television station as a public forum carries significant consequences for its operators as it limits their ability to restrict content. Therefore, whether courts classify channels as modern versions of a town square—or the equivalent—has direct implications on the programming that can be broadcast to the public. In his plurality opinion in Denver Area Educ. Telecoms. Consortium, Justice Breyer said it would be “premature” to classify public access channels as public fora. (Or to not classify them as such.) However, given that 22 years have elapsed since the Court’s opinion and that a circuit split has subsequently developed, perhaps the Supreme Court would consider the issue appropriately mature enough to return with a clear answer sometime soon.

Sitting or Standing … Injury in Fact after a Data Breach?

The Issue

“If you live in the U.S. and breathe oxygen, there’s a good chance you may be impacted by the latest security breach [Equifax].” –CNN

A battle wages on between creative hackers and information security professionals, each struggling to outpace the other.  Likely, most of us already have had personal or medical information leaked in one of several massive data breaches in recent years, possibly even today with the news coming out that five million Lord and Taylor and Saks Fifth Avenue customers had their information stolen. Until you are hit with identify theft, medical insurance fraud, or some other abuse of your data, your options are only to lock down credit reports and purchase identity theft insurance, then sit back and hope your personal information is not misused.

In the meantime, you are upset, you are worried, but so far it does not seem like the hackers have used your data.  For the sake of this article, we will call you an “Unharmed Victim.”   Do you have standing to sue?

In Fero v. Excellus Health Plan (W.D.N.Y. 2018), hackers gained access to the Excellus’ computer network and the personal identity information (PII) of more than 10.5 million individuals; however, as far as the plaintiffs knew, the hackers had not yet used or misused their stolen data.

The Fero case highlights a wide split among the Circuit courts.  In Fero, a district court found standing for Unharmed Victims of a data breach to sue, relying on the rationale of a recent unpublished Second Circuit case, Whalen v. Michaels Stores (2017)The Fero court cited to similar holdings in several other Circuits which found plaintiffs had standing based on an increased identity theft risk, including Galaria v. Nationwide (6th Cir. 2016), Remijas v Neiman Marcus (7th Cir. 2015), and Attias v. Carefirst (D.C. Cir. 2017).

On the other hand, the Third, Fourth and Eighth circuits in Reilly v. Ceridian Corp. (3rd Cir. 2011), Beck v. McDonald (4th Cir. 2016) and In re: SuperValu Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. (8th Cir. 2017), all declined to find standing in data breach cases wherein hackers had not yet used or misused plaintiffs’ stolen data.

The Standing Requirement

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing by demonstrating three elements: 1) an injury in fact; 2) fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant; and 3) likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

Further to the first element of Lujan, in Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that a plaintiff must allege an injury that is “concrete, particularized, actual or imminent…” and emphasized that a future injury must be “certainly impending,” rather than simply speculative.

In certain circuits, Unharmed Victims’ ability to establish standing by pleading an injury in fact is significantly more challenging than in other circuits.

The Split

The Fero court cites the Sixth, Seventh and D.C. Circuit in finding standing on the basis that an increased identity theft risk is sufficient to state an injury in fact.

Those three Circuit Courts could not find a reason why hackers would break into a database and steal consumers’ private information, if not intending harm. The courts reasoned that the most likely and obvious motivation for hackers was to use plaintiff’s PII nefariously or to sell it to someone who would.  The court in Fero adopted this rationale, especially because the PII stored on the Excellus networks was particularly valuable for committing identity theft and fraud.  “All of these injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs and Class Members are a direct and proximate result of the Excellus data breach and include … the imminent and certain impending injury flowing from fraud and identity theft posed by their PII and PHI being placed in the hands of unknown third parties.”

The Sixth Circuit went a step further by holding that the combination of theft by “ill-intentioned criminals” and the reasonable mitigation costs by the plaintiffs such as purchasing credit reporting services and frequently reviewing bank statements results in an injury in fact. “Where Plaintiffs already know they have lost control of their data, it would be unreasonable to expect plaintiffs to wait for actual misuse…before taking steps to ensure their own personal and financial security.”

On the other side of the split, the Third, Fourth and Eighth circuits have declined to grant standing to plaintiffs whose stolen data was not yet used or misused, saying the mere risk of identity theft is too speculative to constitute an injury, and therefore insufficient to constitute injury in fact.   Specifically, the Fourth Circuit argued against standing because as more and more time passed after the breach, with the plaintiffs still unable to produce evidence of their PII or PHI being misused, the threat of injury became more and more speculative.

The Fourth and Eighth Circuits argued against the mitigation of risk argument put forth by the Sixth Circuit and held that the costs plaintiffs incurred in “protecting themselves against this speculative threat cannot create injury” (8th Cir.)  and “self-imposed harms cannot confer standing.” (4th Cir.)

Notably, the D.C Circuit flatly contradicts the more time, more speculation rationale put forth by the 4th Circuit and found the plaintiffs had standing, even though they had “not suffered any identity theft or other harm in more than three years since the breach.”

Looking Forward

On February 16, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari to review an appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s decision to deny standing in Attias v. CareFirst.

Without Supreme Court guidance, the Sixth, Seventh, and D.C. circuits have now seemingly emerged as the clear forums of choice for data breach class actions.  Conversely, defendant companies will logically seek to consolidate data breach class actions in the Third, Fourth and Eighth Circuits.  There are other Circuits not mentioned in the Fero case that may widen the split on this issue.

Do the due process restrictions on shackling criminal defendants apply equally to jury and non-jury proceedings?

Background

Due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments restricts the use of physical restraints on criminal defendants during a criminal trial. Because shackles are inherently prejudicial, the Supreme Court instructed in Deck v. Morrison (2005) that defendants should only be shackled during trial as a last resort. Shackles interfere with a jury’s ability to make accurate determinations about both guilt and sentencing because they imply to a jury that the defendant is dangerous, and may cause a jury to infer negative attributes about the defendant’s character.

The Court established a rule in Deck that physical restraints that are visible to a jury may only be used after a trial court determination that they are justified by an essential state interest, based on particular concerns in a specific defendant’s trial. For example, a trial court may find that a particular defendant poses such severe security risks that shackling is necessary to protect the occupants of the courtroom. Judges may not impose blanket rules about the use of restraints, and the inquiry must be specific to concerns about the particular defendant. The Deck rule applies to both guilt-determination proceedings and to sentencing proceedings.

The Court builds the rule in Deck v. Morrison from three essential principles:

  • The presumption of a defendant’s innocence until proven guilty. Visible restraints erode the fairness of the criminal proceeding by implying that the defendant is dangerous and tipping the scale in favor of guilt.
  • The defendant’s constitutional right to counsel. Shackles interfere with a defendant’s ability to move freely to communicate with her attorney. Defendants physically struggle to write when they are restricted by shackles, which limits their ability to effectively communicate with counsel during criminal proceedings.
  • The dignity and decorum of the courtroom is necessary to support confidence that the legal system pursues justice as it handles the potential deprivation of liberty. Courtroom dignity requires that defendants are treated respectfully.

The Issue

The Court only addressed jury proceedings in Deck. The Deck holding left lower courts to determine whether a defendant’s due process rights require the same justification for shackles in proceedings without juries.

The Split

The Second Circuit does not require a specific evaluation of the need for restraints in non-jury proceedings. Because juror prejudice is the primary concern for limiting the use of restraints in the courtroom, the Second Circuit examined in United States v. Zuber (1997) whether a concern of prejudice is present when judges rather than juries do the sentencing.

We traditionally assume that judges, unlike juries, are not prejudiced by impermissible factors, …, and we make no exception here. We presume that where, as here, the court defers without further inquiry to the recommendation of the Marshals Service that a defendant be restrained at sentencing, the court will not permit the presence of the restraints to affect its sentencing decision.

Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit held in United States v. Lafond (2015) that the Deck rule against restraints only limits the use of restraints at proceedings with juries.

The Ninth Circuit arrived at a different conclusion in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez (2017). The court extended the Deck rule to non-jury proceedings and clarified that it applies in pretrial, trial, and sentencing proceedings. The Ninth Circuit now requires that, before shackling a criminal defendant in both jury and non-jury proceedings, courts must decide if the security concerns with the particular defendant outweigh the infringement on the defendant’s due process right.

Continuing with the rationale for the Deck rule, the court applied the principle of presuming a defendant’s innocence until proven guilty.

The principle [that defendants are innocent until proven guilty] isn’t limited to juries or trial proceedings. It includes the perception of any person who may walk into a public courtroom, as well as those of the jury, the judge and court personnel. A presumptively innocent defendant has the right to be treated with respect and dignity in a public courtroom, not like a bear on a chain.

Using the third Deck justification, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that dignity and decorum require consistent application of the rule:

Courtrooms are palaces of justice, imbued with a majesty that reflects the gravity of proceedings designed to deprive a person of liberty or even life. A member of the public who wanders into a criminal courtroom must immediately perceive that it is a place where justice is administered with due regard to individuals whom the law presumes to be innocent. That perception cannot prevail if defendants are marched in like convicts on a chain gang. Both the defendant and the public have the right to a dignified, inspiring and open court process. Thus, innocent defendants may not be shackled at any point in the courtroom unless there is an individualized showing of need.

Looking Forward

The Supreme Court recently granted a writ of certiorari for Sanchez-Gomez, but declined to take up the issue of whether due process prohibits the use of restraints in non-jury proceedings. The circuit split and conflicting rationales present a need for clarity on this important constitutional issue.

 

 

 

 

Too Little Too Late If You Work for The State? The Applicability of Employee Thresholds to Age Discrimination Claims from State Workers

The Issue

Americans born in 1978 will be turning 40 this year. In addition to the wisdom that comes with age, these citizens will also be gaining the possibility of protection from age discrimination under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA). This act prohibits employers from discriminating “against persons 40 years of age or older.29 U.S.C. §§ 621–34. According to 29 U.S.C. § 630(b), the term “employer” is defined as:

[…] a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year․ The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State and any agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State, and any interstate agency, but such term does not include the United States, or a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States. (Emphasis Added)

If the “twenty or more employees” threshold is not met, workers over 40 are ineligible for ADEA protection. The circuit courts are split on whether the 20-employee threshold only applies to persons, or whether agents of persons, and state entities are included.

The Split

The Seventh Circuit

In Kelly v. Wauconda Park Dist. (7th Cir. 1986), the Seventh Circuit ruled that government entities were encompassed by the 20-employee threshold in 29 U.S.C. § 630(b). The court utilized a two-step process in determining whether government entities had to meet the 20-employee threshold. First, the court looked at whether 29 U.S.C. § 630(b) is ambiguous. If the statute was determined to be ambiguous, then the court would analyze legislative history to guide its decision.

In the first step of the analysis, both parties made arguments about the ambiguity of the statute. Kelly made an argument that the statute excluded government entities, and Wauconda argued that government entities were included by the statute. The court concluded that the statute was ambiguous because it had two reasonable but differing interpretations.

The court then analyzed the legislative history. The lower court ruled “that ‘[t]he legislative history of the 1974 amendment, the similarities between it and a parallel amendment of Title VII, and common sense’ all favor [Wauconda’s] reading of section 630(b).” The Seventh Circuit believed that the analysis of the 1974 ADEA amendment’s history was a valid point, and that Title VII had a large number of parallels to the ADEA. Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit held that the legislative history weighed in favor of the ADEA’s 20-employee threshold applying to government entities.

Therefore, Wauconda Park District, a local government entity, was not an “employer” for ADEA purposes because it did not have the required number of employees as specified in 29 U.S.C. § 630(b).

The Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits

In EEOC v. Monclova Township (6th Cir. 1990), Palmer v. Arkansas Council On Economic Education (8th Cir. 1998), and Cink v. Grant County (10th Cir. 2015), the Sixth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit, respectively, came to the same conclusion as the Seventh Circuit in Kelly.  Each circuit held that the 20-employee threshold applied to state entities.

The Ninth Circuit

In Guido v. Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. (9th Cir. 2017), the court held that the ADEA definition of “employer” “is deconstructed as follows: The term “employer” means [A—person] and also means (1) [B—agent of person] and (2) [C—State-affiliated entities].” Due to the division of these three categories, the “person” category is the only category of the three that is modified by the “who has twenty or more employees” clause. If this is the case, then “agents of the person” or “state-affiliated entities” would have to comply with the ADEA regardless of meeting the 20-employee threshold.

The court supports their position by claiming that the “person” category is further defined by 29 U.S.C. § 630(a) (The term “person” means one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized groups of persons), and is narrowed by the “engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees for each working day” clause. The court also claims that the “state-affiliated entities” category is further defined by “the various types of State-affiliated entities covered, such as a ‘political subdivision of a State’.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) supports the Ninth Circuit’s holding. The EEOC states that when Title VII was amended, Congress was able “to apply clarifying language across multiple definitions of a term.” The clarifying language in question applied to “States and State-related entities, including political subdivisions of a State.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The EEOC believed that Congress could have applied similar language to 29 U.S.C. § 630(b) if it had wanted to, but that Congress chose not to.

The ninth circuit ultimately held that “a political subdivision of a State need not have twenty or more employees in order to qualify as an employer subject to the requirements of the ADEA.”

Looking Forward

Based on the holdings from the various circuits, a state entity may or may not be considered an “employer” under the ADEA’s 20-employee threshold. On February 26, 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case of Guido v. Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. Thus, the issue may be resolved soon.

For further reading, see what Squire Patton Boggs has to say on the topic.