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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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