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

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

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought a civil enforcement action against Dale Chappell and his investment entities for insider trading. The SEC alleged that Chappell traded securities based on material, nonpublic information about the FDA's feedback on a drug developed by Humanigen, a company in which Chappell's entities were the largest shareholders. The FDA had expressed significant concerns about the drug's clinical trial and recommended an additional trial. Despite this, Humanigen submitted an application for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) without conducting a second trial. Chappell sold a significant portion of his Humanigen stock before the FDA's denial of the EUA application was publicly announced, avoiding substantial losses.In the District Court, the SEC sought and obtained a preliminary injunction to freeze Chappell’s assets. Chappell appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. It found that the SEC had shown a likelihood of success on its claim that Chappell violated insider trading laws. The court concluded that the FDA's feedback was material and that Chappell had the necessary mindset to commit fraud. The court also found that the preliminary injunction factors, including irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest, supported the injunction. The court noted that without the injunction, there was a substantial potential injury to Humanigen shareholders if Chappell was able to move assets out of reach of future judgment creditors. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chappell" on Justia Law

The case involves Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), a natural gas company that sought to abandon and expand its pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. To do so, Transco needed a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which it obtained. However, the certificate was subject to conditions, including that Transco receive three additional permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). After receiving these permits, Transco began its pipeline project. However, three environmental advocates filed an administrative appeal with the Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) challenging PADEP's issuance of the permits. In response, Transco initiated a lawsuit in the District Court seeking to enjoin the administrative appeal, arguing that the Natural Gas Act preempts the state law allowing the appeal.The District Court rejected Transco's preemption arguments and denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. Transco appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, finding that none of the theories of preemption advanced by Transco or the state agency applied in this case. The Court held that the Natural Gas Act does not expressly preempt administrative appeals to the EHB, nor does it field preempt such appeals. The Court also found that the possibility of multiple challenges in different fora to PADEP permitting decisions under the Clean Water Act for interstate natural gas pipelines does not impose an obstacle to the purposes of the Natural Gas Act. Therefore, the Court concluded that Transco's motion for a preliminary injunction was correctly denied. View "Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co LLC v. Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board" on Justia Law

Samantha Peifer, an employee of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, filed a lawsuit against her employer alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Peifer, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and later became pregnant, requested accommodations from her employer due to her inability to perform certain tasks. Her requests were initially denied, but later granted after she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, she was not allowed to work from home as requested due to her high-risk pregnancy and exposure to COVID-19. Peifer eventually resigned, citing discriminatory treatment, and filed additional charges with the EEOC.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Board's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Peifer could not establish a prima facie case for any of her claims. Peifer appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that Peifer's claims partly failed but concluded that the District Court was best situated to analyze the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis on whether Peifer makes out a prima facie case under an adverse employment action theory. The Court of Appeals also concluded that Peifer makes out a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination based on the Board’s denials of her light-duty requests under a failure to accommodate theory. The case was remanded for further analysis on Peifer’s adverse employment theory and failure to accommodate theory, while the District Court’s decisions on Peifer’s constructive discharge allegation and retaliation claim were affirmed. View "Peifer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole" on Justia Law

The case involves Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., Smith & Wesson Sales Company, and Smith & Wesson Inc. (collectively, “Smith & Wesson”) and the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. The New Jersey Attorney General issued a subpoena to Smith & Wesson under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, seeking documents related to the company's advertising practices. Smith & Wesson filed a federal lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena, alleging it violated various constitutional provisions. The New Jersey Attorney General then filed a subpoena enforcement action in state court. The state court rejected Smith & Wesson’s objections and ordered the company to comply with the subpoena.The state court proceedings concluded before the federal case, with the state court ordering Smith & Wesson to comply with the subpoena. The federal court then dismissed Smith & Wesson’s civil rights action on claim preclusion grounds, giving preclusive effect to the state court’s order. The state appellate court later affirmed the state court judgment. Smith & Wesson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the District Court should not have given preclusive effect to the state court order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The court found that all elements of New Jersey’s claim preclusion test were satisfied. The court also rejected Smith & Wesson’s argument that it had reserved its right to litigate in federal court, finding that such reservation was unavailable in this case. The court emphasized that litigants get one opportunity to make their arguments, not two, and they cannot file a federal lawsuit to hedge against a potentially unfavorable state ruling. View "Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of New Jersey" on Justia Law

The case involves Carlos Inestroza-Tosta, a native and citizen of Honduras, who illegally entered the United States multiple times and was removed on each occasion. After his third illegal entry, he was apprehended following an arrest for aggravated assault. His prior order of removal was reinstated, but he claimed a fear of returning to Honduras and sought withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. His requests were denied by the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), leading to his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The BIA dismissed Inestroza-Tosta's appeal, affirming the IJ's denial of his motion for administrative closure and his applications for statutory withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA held that Inestroza-Tosta had not established that any harm he experienced or feared was connected to a protected ground, and his proposed particular social group, "gang violence recipients," was not recognized by law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the 30-day deadline for a would-be immigrant to seek judicial review of a "final order of removal" is nonjurisdictional. The court also held that an order of removal is not final until a decision has been made on the alien’s request for withholding of removal. Applying these conclusions to this case, the court ruled that Inestroza-Tosta timely sought review of the BIA’s denial of his requests for statutory withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. However, his petition failed on the merits. Although he suffered persecution in the past, he could not demonstrate a clear probability of future harm based on a protected status or trait. Therefore, while his petition for review was timely, it was denied. View "Inestroza-Tosta v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

The case involves a non-verbal student, Alexandre Le Pape, and his family who repeatedly requested that the Lower Merion School District change his educational program to include a new communication protocol known as "Spelling to Communicate" (S2C). The school district denied these requests, leading to Alexandre's withdrawal from public education. The family filed an administrative special education due process complaint against the school district, alleging that the district failed to protect Alexandre's rights and denied him a Free Accessible Public Education (FAPE) under various laws. An administrative hearing officer ruled against the family on all claims, leading them to file a suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.The District Court granted the school district's motions for summary judgment on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim and judgment on the administrative record for the denial-of-FAPE claims. The Le Papes appealed the court's decision, arguing that the court granted judgment without applying the summary judgment standard to which they were entitled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case. The court held that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment for the school district on the Le Papes' ADA discrimination claim and judgment on the administrative record for their discrimination claims under both the ADA and Section 504. The court clarified that a denial-of-FAPE claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) can be resolved through an administrative appeal, but ADA and Section 504 discrimination claims seeking compensatory damages, even if on the same facts, should be resolved through summary judgment and, possibly, trial. View "Le Pape v. Lower Merion School District" on Justia Law

The case involves the Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and its affiliates, who sued several medical practices in separate actions in the District of New Jersey. GEICO alleged that the practices defrauded them of more than $10 million by abusing the personal injury protection (PIP) benefits offered by its auto policies. The practices allegedly filed exaggerated claims for medical services, billed medically unnecessary care, and engaged in illegal kickback schemes. GEICO's suits against the practices each included a claim under the New Jersey’s Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA).The practices sought arbitration of GEICO’s IFPA claim, arguing that a valid arbitration agreement covered the claim and that a different New Jersey insurance law allowed them to compel arbitration. However, each District Court disagreed, ruling instead that IFPA claims cannot be arbitrated. The practices appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' decisions, holding that claims under the IFPA are arbitrable. The court found that GEICO's argument that the IFPA implicitly prohibits arbitration was not persuasive. The court also concluded that GEICO’s IFPA claims must be compelled to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), as the claims fell under the scope of the arbitration agreement in GEICO's Precertification and Decision Point Review Plan. The court remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration of GEICO’s IFPA claims against the practices. View "GEICO v. Caring Pain Management PC" on Justia Law