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

Steven Baker was charged with bank robbery and using a firearm during the robbery. The government offered him a plea deal to plead guilty to these charges and admit to two other bank robberies without being charged for them. Baker’s counsel incorrectly advised him that he faced 15-17 years if he accepted the plea and 21 years for the firearm charges if he went to trial. In reality, he faced a 57-year mandatory minimum for the firearm charges due to the statute’s “stacking” provision. Misled by this advice, Baker rejected the plea, went to trial, and was convicted on all counts, receiving a 57-year sentence for the firearm charges plus 87 months for the bank robberies.Baker appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. He then filed a Section 2255 motion, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel due to the miscalculation of his sentence exposure. The District Court for the District of New Jersey denied relief, finding that Baker could not show prejudice from his counsel’s error.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Baker’s counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable due to the significant miscalculation of his sentence exposure. The court also determined that Baker demonstrated prejudice because there was a reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea offer if he had been correctly advised. The court noted the substantial disparity between the plea offer (15-17 years) and the actual sentence (57 years plus 87 months) and credited Baker’s testimony that he would have accepted the plea but for his counsel’s error. The court reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded with instructions to order the government to reoffer the original plea agreement to Baker. View "Baker v. United States" on Justia Law

Elfido Gonzalez Castillo, a Mexican citizen, was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1989. In 2009, he applied for naturalization but failed to disclose pending criminal charges for sexually abusing his niece. He was naturalized in October 2009 and later pled guilty to third-degree sexual assault. In 2019, the government sought to revoke his naturalization, which was granted in 2022. Subsequently, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) for removal proceedings, charging Castillo with removability for a child abuse conviction. The NTA was filed in the Cleveland Immigration Court, and hearings were conducted remotely.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Castillo’s application for cancellation of removal. Castillo appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing he was not removable because he was a U.S. citizen at the time of his conviction. The BIA applied Sixth Circuit law, as the NTA was filed in Cleveland, and dismissed the appeal. Castillo filed three petitions for review in the Third Circuit, asserting that venue was proper there because the IJ completed the proceedings while he was detained in Pennsylvania.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case to determine the proper venue for Castillo’s petitions. The court concluded that the IJ completed the proceedings in Cleveland, Ohio, where the NTA was filed and administrative venue vested. Therefore, venue did not lie in the Third Circuit but in the Sixth Circuit. The Third Circuit held that it had the inherent power to transfer the case to the appropriate venue and decided to transfer Castillo’s petitions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. View "Castillo v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

The New Jersey Staffing Alliance, the American Staffing Association, and the New Jersey Business and Industry Association sought to enjoin a New Jersey law designed to protect temporary workers. The law, known as the Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights, mandates recordkeeping, disclosure requirements, and state certification procedures for staffing firms. It also imposes joint and several liability on clients hiring temporary workers and requires staffing firms to pay temporary workers wages equivalent to those of permanent employees performing similar work.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the Staffing Associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The court found that the law did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses, as it imposed the same burdens on both in-state and out-of-state firms. The court also rejected the void-for-vagueness claim, reasoning that the law provided sufficient guidance on its requirements. Additionally, the court determined that the law was a reasonable exercise of New Jersey’s police power, as it was rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting temporary workers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit agreed that the Staffing Associations failed to show a likelihood of success on their claims. The court held that the law did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, as it did not favor in-state businesses over out-of-state competitors. The court also found that the law was not unconstitutionally vague, as it provided adequate notice of its requirements. Finally, the court upheld the law as a permissible exercise of state police power, as it was rationally related to the goal of protecting temporary workers. View "New Jersey Staffing Alliance v. Fais" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a health advisory in 2022 for HFPO-DA, a chemical found in drinking water. The Chemours Company, which uses HFPO-DA in manufacturing, challenged the advisory, arguing it was unlawful. Chemours contended that the advisory violated procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the nondelegation doctrine.Chemours petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for review, invoking the section of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that allows for review of final actions by the EPA Administrator. Chemours argued that the health advisory was a final agency action, thus subject to judicial review. The EPA, however, maintained that the advisory was not a final action but rather a nonbinding document meant to provide information to decision-makers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the health advisory did not constitute a final agency action because it did not determine any rights or obligations, nor did it have direct and appreciable legal consequences. The court emphasized that the advisory was informational and non-enforceable, and any legal consequences would result from subsequent actions by other entities, not from the advisory itself. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the advisory under the SDWA. View "The Chemours Company FC, LLC v. EPA" on Justia Law

Cephia Hayes, an employee of the New Jersey Department of Human Services (NJDHS) since 2004, alleged that her supervisor began sexually harassing her in 2016 and retaliated against her when she rebuffed his advances. In October 2019, Hayes filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC decided not to pursue her case and communicated this decision to Hayes's lawyer via email on March 11, 2020, stating that a right-to-sue letter would be issued. The EEOC also posted the right-to-sue letter to its online portal on the same day.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of NJDHS, ruling that Hayes's Title VII claims were time-barred. The court determined that the 90-day filing period began either when the EEOC emailed Hayes's lawyer or when the right-to-sue letter was posted to the EEOC's online portal. Consequently, the court found that Hayes's lawsuit, filed on November 24, 2020, was untimely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that the March 11 email from the EEOC to Hayes's lawyer did not start the 90-day clock because it was not equivalent to a right-to-sue letter. The court also ruled that the posting of the right-to-sue letter to the EEOC's online portal did not suffice to start the 90-day period without direct communication to Hayes or her lawyer. The court found that Hayes had presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that she received the right-to-sue letter three days after it was mailed, creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the timeliness of her lawsuit. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hayes v. New Jersey Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Delaware residents and organizations challenged two new state gun laws in federal court. One law bans the possession, manufacture, sale, and transport of "assault weapons," while the other bans magazines that hold more than seventeen rounds. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of these laws, arguing that they violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied the preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the laws were consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Additionally, the court did not presume that all Second Amendment harms are irreparable and noted that the plaintiffs retained ample alternatives for self-defense. The court did not reach the other factors for granting a preliminary injunction due to the plaintiffs' failure to show a likelihood of success or irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted automatically, even if the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. The court highlighted that the primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and the court's ability to render a meaningful judgment, not merely to prevent harm. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as they did not provide evidence that Delaware had attempted to enforce the laws against them or that they had an urgent need for the banned firearms and magazines. The court also noted that the balance of equities and public interest weighed against granting the injunction, given the importance of respecting state sovereignty and the democratic process. View "Delaware State Sportsmens Association Inc v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security" on Justia Law

In 2019, several college athletes from NCAA Division I schools filed a complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state wage laws. They argued that they were entitled to federal minimum wage compensation for the time spent representing their schools in sports. The NCAA and member schools moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the athletes, as "amateurs," were not considered employees. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the athletes had sufficiently pleaded facts that might allow them to be classified as employees under the FLSA.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania applied the multifactor test from Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., to determine whether the athletes could be considered employees. The court concluded that the athletes had plausibly pleaded that they might be employees and denied the motion to dismiss. The NCAA and member schools appealed, and the District Court certified an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part the District Court’s decision denying the motion to dismiss. However, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s application of the Glatt test, directing it to apply an economic realities analysis grounded in common-law agency principles. The Third Circuit held that college athletes might be employees under the FLSA if they perform services for another party, primarily for that party’s benefit, under that party’s control, and in return for compensation or in-kind benefits. The court also rejected the argument that the tradition of amateurism alone could bar athletes from asserting FLSA claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Johnson v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association" on Justia Law

Allied Painting & Decorating, Inc. withdrew from the International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund in 2005. Twelve years later, the Fund demanded $427,195 from Allied, claiming it was owed for the withdrawal. The key issue was whether the Fund's delay in sending the demand violated the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), which requires that such demands be made "as soon as practicable" after withdrawal.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reviewed the case after Allied contested the demand, arguing that the delay caused significant prejudice. The Arbitrator initially found that the Fund did not act "as soon as practicable" but concluded that Allied failed to prove severe prejudice, thus rejecting Allied's laches defense. The District Court, however, found that Allied was prejudiced by the delay and vacated the Arbitrator's Award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's order vacating the Arbitrator's Award. The Third Circuit held that the Fund's failure to send the demand "as soon as practicable" after Allied's withdrawal violated the MPPAA. The court clarified that the "as soon as practicable" requirement is a statutory mandate independent of any laches defense, meaning that the Fund's delay alone was sufficient to invalidate the demand, regardless of whether Allied could prove prejudice. Consequently, the Fund could not recover the claimed withdrawal liability from Allied. View "Allied Painting & Decorating Inc v. International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension" on Justia Law

Hugo Abraham Aguilar, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in 2001 and has three U.S. citizen children. In January 2014, he was arrested in New Jersey for allegedly sexually assaulting his stepdaughter and remained in pretrial detention for 1,332 days due to his inability to afford bail. In May 2017, Aguilar pled guilty to a reduced charge of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to 1,332 days in prison, with credit for time served. Shortly after his sentencing, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Aguilar statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, citing his inability to demonstrate "good moral character" due to his confinement for more than 180 days as a result of his conviction. The IJ also denied his request for a continuance to challenge his conviction in state court. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Aguilar's appeal, agreeing with the IJ's findings and concluding that the IJ acted within his discretion in denying the continuance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that pre-conviction detention credited toward a defendant's sentence is considered confinement "as a result of conviction" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Consequently, Aguilar's 1,332 days of pre-conviction detention, credited as time served, precluded him from establishing the required good moral character for cancellation of removal. The court also denied as moot Aguilar's challenge to the BIA's decision dismissing his appeal from the IJ's denial of a continuance, as his state post-conviction relief efforts had concluded unsuccessfully. The Third Circuit denied Aguilar's petition for review. View "Aguilar v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Lontex Corporation, a small Pennsylvania business, holds a registered trademark for “Cool Compression” used in its athletic compression apparel. Lontex sued Nike, Inc. for trademark infringement after discovering Nike's use of the phrase “Cool Compression” in its product names and marketing materials. Nike had rebranded a line of its athletic clothing as “Nike Pro” and used the phrase “Cool Compression” in product names on its website and catalogs. Lontex sent a cease-and-desist letter to Nike in 2016, but Nike continued using the phrase for some time.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held a trial where the jury found Nike liable for willful trademark infringement and contributory infringement, awarding Lontex $142,000 in compensatory damages and $365,000 in punitive damages. The District Court also trebled the compensatory damages to $426,000 and awarded Lontex nearly $5 million in attorney’s fees, deeming the case “exceptional” under the Lanham Act. Nike appealed the findings and the damages awarded, while Lontex cross-appealed the dismissal of its counterfeiting claim and the denial of profit disgorgement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s findings on trademark infringement, willfulness, and the trebling of damages. The Court held that a reasonable jury could find Nike’s continued use of “Cool Compression” after receiving the cease-and-desist letter as willful infringement. However, the Court vacated the award of attorney’s fees, finding that the District Court relied on broad policy considerations rather than specific facts of the case. The Court remanded the issue of attorney’s fees for further proceedings. The Court also upheld the dismissal of Lontex’s counterfeiting claim and the denial of profit disgorgement. View "Lontex Corp v. Nike Inc" on Justia Law