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

A New York wine retailer, Jean Paul Weg LLC, and its owner, Lars Neubohn, challenged New Jersey's regulations that require wine retailers to have a physical presence in the state and to purchase their products from New Jersey licensed wholesalers. These regulations prevent the retailer from directly shipping wine to New Jersey customers. The plaintiffs argued that these requirements violate the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state economic interests.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, including the Director of the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the Attorney General of New Jersey. The District Court found that New Jersey's regulations were justified by legitimate local purposes, such as ensuring alcohol sold to New Jersey consumers passes through the state's three-tier system and facilitating inspections to ensure compliance with regulations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that New Jersey's regulations, while discriminatory in effect, were justified on legitimate nonprotectionist grounds. The court found that the physical presence requirement facilitates inspections and investigations, while the wholesaler purchase requirement helps quickly identify sources of contamination and facilitates product recalls. Additionally, the court determined that these regulations are essential features of New Jersey's three-tier system of alcohol regulation, which is "unquestionably legitimate" under the Twenty-first Amendment. Therefore, the challenged regulations were upheld as constitutional. View "Jean-Paul Weg LLC v. Director of the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control" on Justia Law

George Pitsilides, a successful restaurateur and professional poker player, was convicted in 1998 in Pennsylvania for criminal conspiracy to commit pool selling and bookmaking, and two counts of pool selling and bookmaking. These offenses are classified as first-degree misdemeanors in Pennsylvania, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. Consequently, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Pitsilides is barred from possessing a firearm. Despite these convictions, Pitsilides continued to engage in illegal gambling activities, leading to further convictions in Virginia in 2011 for operating an illegal gambling enterprise.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the Government, applying the two-step framework from Binderup v. Attorney General. The court concluded that Pitsilides failed to show his convictions were not serious and rejected his argument that his offenses fell within the carveout for business-related offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A).The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the legal landscape had changed significantly since the District Court's decision, particularly with the Supreme Court's rulings in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, and the Third Circuit's en banc decision in Range v. Attorney General. These cases emphasized the need for individualized assessments of whether a felon poses a danger to public safety when challenging firearm prohibitions under the Second Amendment.The Third Circuit concluded that the record was insufficient to determine whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Pitsilides. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further factual development to assess whether Pitsilides poses a special danger of misusing firearms. View "Pitsilides v. Barr" on Justia Law

Corrigan Clay, an American citizen, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing his minor adopted daughter while living in Haiti, violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c). Clay argued that Congress lacked the power to enact § 2423(c), which criminalizes illicit sexual conduct by U.S. citizens abroad. He contended that his non-commercial conduct did not fall under Congress's authority to regulate foreign commerce or its treaty power.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Clay's motion to dismiss the indictment, ruling that § 2423(c) was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate the channels of foreign commerce. The court did not address the treaty power arguments. Clay then pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment, the bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines range. He appealed, challenging the constitutionality of § 2423(c) and the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that § 2423(c) is a permissible exercise of congressional power under both the Foreign Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The court reasoned that Congress has broader authority to regulate foreign commerce than interstate commerce, and § 2423(c) fits within this power as it regulates the channels of foreign commerce and activities that substantially affect foreign commerce. Additionally, the court found that § 2423(c) is rationally related to implementing the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography, thus falling under the Necessary and Proper Clause.The Third Circuit also found no procedural or substantive errors in Clay's sentencing, affirming the District Court's judgment. The court concluded that the sentence was reasonable and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offense, the need for just punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. View "USA v. Clay" on Justia Law

Aqudre Quailes and Ayinda Harper were separately charged with being felons in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Harper was on Pennsylvania state probation and parole when his probation officer discovered photographs of him holding firearms on social media. During a home visit, officers found a semiautomatic pistol in his residence. Harper had thirteen prior felony convictions. Quailes, on parole for one of his six prior felony convictions, was arrested for absconding from parole. Authorities found firearms and ammunition in his girlfriend’s apartment, where he had been staying.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed both indictments, ruling that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that the defendants' status as parolees or probationers did not negate their Second Amendment rights. The Government appealed, arguing that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to state parolees and probationers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Quailes and Harper because neither had completed their criminal sentences. The court referenced its en banc decision in Range v. Attorney General, which held that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional for a felon who had completed his sentence, and United States v. Moore, which upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) for felons still serving their sentences. The court concluded that historical practices support disarming convicts who are still serving their sentences, including those on state parole or probation. Consequently, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s orders and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "USA v. Quailes" on Justia Law

Two Starbucks employees, Echo Nowakowska and Tristan Bussiere, were terminated after engaging in labor organizing activities. Starbucks claimed the terminations were due to policy violations and poor performance. However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that the terminations were motivated by the employees' organizing activities, violating Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRB sought enforcement of its order, while Starbucks cross-petitioned for review on several issues, including the constitutionality of the NLRB's administrative law judges (ALJs) and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the NLRB's conclusions.The ALJ concluded that Starbucks failed to prove it would have terminated the employees absent their organizing activities. The ALJ found substantial evidence that the terminations and reduction in hours were motivated by anti-union animus, supported by internal communications and the timing of disciplinary actions. The NLRB adopted the ALJ's findings and ordered Starbucks to reinstate the employees and compensate them for lost earnings and benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Starbucks' constitutional challenge to the ALJ removal protections and found that Starbucks failed to demonstrate injury from these protections. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB's conclusions that the terminations and reduction in hours were due to the employees' organizing activities. Additionally, the court upheld the NLRB's finding that Starbucks knew about the employees' recording activities before their terminations, precluding the use of after-acquired evidence to limit remedies.However, the court vacated the portion of the NLRB's order requiring Starbucks to compensate the employees for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, finding it exceeded the Board's authority under the NLRA. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "NLRB v. Starbucks Corp" on Justia Law

Angela Reading, a mother and former school board member, alleged that federal and local government officials violated her First Amendment rights by censoring and retaliating against her after she posted comments on Facebook. The controversy began when Reading criticized a poster at her child's elementary school that featured various sexual identities. Her post drew significant attention and backlash from military personnel at a nearby base, leading to a series of communications and actions by local and federal officials, including heightened security at a school board meeting and referrals to counter-terrorism authorities.Reading sought a preliminary injunction to prevent further interference with her free speech rights. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied her motion, concluding that she failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether Reading had standing to seek a preliminary injunction. The court found that the bulk of the alleged unlawful conduct occurred during a brief period and had significantly subsided by the time Reading filed her lawsuit. The court determined that Reading did not show a substantial risk of future harm or a likelihood of future injury traceable to the defendants. Consequently, the court held that Reading lacked standing to seek a preliminary injunction and affirmed the District Court's order denying her motion. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Reading v. North Hanover Township" on Justia Law

The case involves the Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association (JUA), which was established by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nearly fifty years ago to address a medical malpractice insurance crisis. The JUA acts as a professional liability insurer of last resort for high-risk medical providers and is funded solely by premiums paid by its policyholders. Over the years, the JUA has accumulated a surplus of about $300 million through investments. From 2016 to 2019, the Commonwealth attempted to transfer the JUA’s surplus to the General Fund or assume control of the JUA through legislative actions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania reviewed the case multiple times. In 2017, the JUA sued the Governor after the enactment of Act 44, which mandated the transfer of $200 million from the JUA to the General Fund. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction and later summary judgment in favor of the JUA, holding that the JUA was a private entity and that the Act violated the Takings Clause. In 2018, after the enactment of Act 41, which placed the JUA under the control of the Insurance Department and mandated the transfer of all its assets, the JUA again sued. The District Court ruled in favor of the JUA, reiterating its earlier decision. In 2019, the JUA challenged Act 15, which required the JUA to be funded by the Commonwealth and categorized it as a Commonwealth agency. The District Court granted partial summary judgment for the JUA, holding that certain provisions of Act 15 constituted a regulatory taking and violated the First Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and applied the principles from Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward to determine whether the JUA is a public or private entity. The Court concluded that the JUA is a public entity because it was created to serve a public purpose, exercises the Commonwealth’s coercive power, and only the Commonwealth has a legally protectable interest in the JUA. Consequently, the JUA cannot assert constitutional claims against the Commonwealth. The Court reversed the District Court’s rulings in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association v. Governor of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

Several contractors and an employee, who regularly handle public works projects for PennDOT and SEPTA, challenged Philadelphia's requirement for project labor agreements (PLAs) on public projects. These PLAs mandated union recognition and membership, and set workforce diversity goals. The plaintiffs argued that these requirements violated their First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They were ineligible to bid on certain city projects due to their existing collective bargaining agreements with the United Steelworkers, which is not affiliated with the required unions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to Philadelphia. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the union-eligibility requirement and failed to show that the diversity requirement caused them harm based on race. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs' § 1981 claim failed because race was not a but-for cause of their inability to work on city projects with PLAs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the union-eligibility requirement under the First Amendment. The court determined that the plaintiffs suffered a concrete and particularized injury by being ineligible to bid on city projects due to the PLAs. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims were not moot despite Philadelphia's subsequent changes to the PLAs, as the plaintiffs sought damages for past violations and prospective relief.The Third Circuit also found that the plaintiffs had standing to raise an Equal Protection claim, as they demonstrated an intent to bid on future projects covered by the PLAs. The court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider the merits of the plaintiffs' First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and § 1981 claims. View "Road-Con Inc v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Two commercial fishermen, Raymond Lofstad and Gus Lovgren, challenged the constitutionality of the appointment process for members of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The Council, which oversees fisheries from New York to Virginia, had approved an amendment lowering the catch limits for certain fish species, which the Secretary of Commerce subsequently approved. The fishermen argued that the Council members, who were not appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate, exercised significant authority and thus should be considered "Officers of the United States" under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled against the fishermen, holding that the Council members did not exercise significant authority and were therefore not officers. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, reasoning that the Council's role was merely advisory and did not involve significant authority.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found that the Council members did exercise significant authority, particularly through their power to veto certain actions by the Secretary of Commerce. The court held that these veto powers made the Council members principal officers who should have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. To remedy the constitutional violation, the court severed the Council's pocket-veto powers, reducing the members to mere employees who do not require such appointments. The court reversed the District Court's summary judgment for the government and rendered judgment for the fishermen. View "Lofstad v. Secretary United States Department of Commerce" on Justia Law

Roy Lee Williams, a death-row inmate with a history of mental illness, was held in solitary confinement for twenty-six years. Williams filed a lawsuit claiming that his prolonged solitary confinement without penological justification violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) was entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim and that Williams could not prove deliberate indifference under the ADA.Before the summary judgment, the District Court dismissed Williams' Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim. Williams appealed both the summary judgment and the dismissal of his Fourteenth Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the Secretary had "fair and clear warning" that keeping Williams in solitary confinement without penological justification was unconstitutional, thus rejecting the qualified immunity defense. The court held that it was clearly established that someone with a known preexisting serious mental illness has a constitutional right not to be held in prolonged solitary confinement without penological justification.Regarding the ADA claim, the court found that the District Court erred in concluding that a trier of fact could not find the DOC deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm caused by placing and keeping Williams in solitary confinement despite his mental illness. The court vacated the District Court's grant of summary judgment on both the Eighth Amendment and ADA claims and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Williams' Fourteenth Amendment claim. View "Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections" on Justia Law