Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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