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

A ten-year-old girl named Nylah Anderson died after attempting the "Blackout Challenge," a dangerous activity promoted in a video recommended to her by TikTok's algorithm. Her mother, Tawainna Anderson, sued TikTok and ByteDance, Inc., alleging that the companies were aware of the challenge, allowed such videos to be posted, and promoted them to minors, including Nylah, through their algorithm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the complaint, ruling that TikTok was immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which protects interactive computer services from liability for content posted by third parties. The court found that TikTok's role in recommending the video fell under this immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case. The Third Circuit held that TikTok's algorithm, which curates and recommends videos, constitutes TikTok's own expressive activity, or first-party speech. Since Section 230 of the CDA only provides immunity for third-party content, it does not protect TikTok from liability for its own recommendations. Therefore, the court concluded that Anderson's claims were not barred by Section 230, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. View "Anderson v. TikTok Inc" on Justia Law

Fernando Nunez, Jr., an inmate in Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Nunez, a devout Muslim, claimed that the DOC violated his religious rights by denying him accommodations to consummate his marriage and have ongoing conjugal visits, engage in congregate prayer with visitors, and undergo a religious circumcision.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the DOC. The court concluded that the DOC had compelling interests in denying Nunez's requests and that there were no less restrictive alternatives available. The court relied on affidavits from DOC officials, which cited concerns about safety, security, health, and resource constraints. The court found that Nunez failed to disprove that the DOC's policies were the least restrictive means of furthering these interests.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the District Court did not properly hold the DOC to its burden under RLUIPA. The Third Circuit concluded that the DOC failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims of compelling interests and did not adequately consider less restrictive alternatives. The court emphasized that RLUIPA requires a rigorous and fact-intensive inquiry and that the DOC's "mere say-so" was insufficient to meet this standard. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the DOC to supplement the record to meet its burden under RLUIPA. View "Nunez v. Wolf" on Justia Law

Gary Lall, born in Trinidad and Tobago, applied for a Certificate of Citizenship in 1990 through his adoptive parents, who were naturalized U.S. citizens. The government erroneously approved his application after he turned eighteen, issuing a certificate stating he "became a citizen." However, Lall had not met the statutory requirements for citizenship. The error was discovered shortly after issuance, but the government waited twenty-one years to cancel the certificate. Lall, incarcerated at the time, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking recognition of his citizenship.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed Lall's declaratory judgment action, finding he never obtained citizenship. Concurrently, the government initiated removal proceedings, and an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Lall's removal, rejecting his claim to citizenship. Lall appealed both the District Court's dismissal and the IJ's removal order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Lall never satisfied the statutory requirements for citizenship under the relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as they existed in 1991. The court emphasized that a Certificate of Citizenship is only prima facie evidence of citizenship and does not confer citizenship if statutory requirements are unmet. The court also ruled that equitable estoppel could not be used to confer citizenship, as courts lack the power to grant citizenship contrary to statutory requirements. Consequently, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of Lall's declaratory judgment action and denied his petition for review of the IJ's removal order. View "Lall v. USICE" on Justia Law

A man was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the killing of a police officer. The incident occurred during a traffic stop, where the officer was shot multiple times. The defendant was apprehended shortly after the shooting, and a firearm matching the bullets found at the scene was recovered from his vehicle. The defendant claimed he acted in self-defense, believing the officer was about to shoot him.The trial court, the Superior Court of California, found the defendant guilty and imposed the death penalty. The defendant appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial court made several errors, including improper jury instructions and the exclusion of certain evidence that could have supported his self-defense claim. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting the defendant's arguments. The defendant then sought review from the California Supreme Court.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court found that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions and that the exclusion of the evidence in question did not prejudice the defendant's case. The court also held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. The court concluded that the defendant's actions were not justified as self-defense and that the killing of the officer was premeditated and deliberate. The conviction and death sentence were affirmed. View "USA v. Clark" on Justia Law

Cornelius Green, a member of the Infamous Ryders motorcycle club, was involved in an incident where Ishmael Snowell, who had declined membership in the club, was allegedly kidnapped. Green, along with co-defendant William Murphy and Steven Wong, met Snowell at the club's clubhouse. A fight ensued between Snowell and Murphy, with Green refereeing. Wong discovered photos of money on Snowell’s phone and demanded to know its location. Snowell claimed the money was at his aunt’s house in Reading, Pennsylvania. Murphy drove Snowell and Green, who was armed, to the house. Testimonies diverged on whether Murphy and Snowell could have escaped during a stop at a gas station. Upon arrival, they searched for the money, and Snowell claimed Wong ordered Green to shoot him. Snowell attempted to escape, leading to a fight with Green, which ended when neighbors called the police.The grand jury indicted Green, Murphy, and Wong for kidnapping and robbery. Green moved to sever his trial from Murphy and Wong, but the District Court denied the motion. Wong’s trial was later severed due to a change in attorneys, and he was acquitted. During the joint trial of Green and Murphy, Murphy testified that Wong coerced him into the kidnapping and that Green threatened Snowell with a gun. Green renewed his motion to sever, arguing that Murphy’s defense was antagonistic to his own, but the District Court denied it.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that Green and Murphy presented mutually antagonistic defenses, which prejudiced Green’s right to a fair trial. The court held that the District Court abused its discretion in denying Green’s motion to sever. Consequently, the Third Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to sever, vacated Green’s conviction and sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. View "USA v. Green" on Justia Law

In 2001, the Commonwealth charged Robert Gene Rega with first-degree murder and other crimes for shooting a security guard, Christopher Lauth, during a robbery at the Gateway Lodge in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. Rega, along with Shawn Bair, Raymond Fishel, and Stanford Jones, planned the robbery, while Jones’s wife, Susan, stayed at Rega’s home. During the robbery, Lauth was killed. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimonies of Bair, Fishel, and the Joneses, who identified Rega as the shooter. Additional evidence included a video of Rega purchasing ammunition and testimony from a friend that Rega asked for a false alibi.The Pennsylvania state court convicted Rega of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. Rega's conviction and sentence were upheld on direct appeal and in a Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) proceeding. Rega then filed a federal habeas petition. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied his guilt-phase claims but granted relief from his death sentence, ordering a new sentencing hearing or life imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. Rega raised claims that the prosecutor withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland and presented false testimony in violation of Giglio v. United States and Napue v. Illinois. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of relief on these claims, concluding that the evidence and testimony in question were not material to Rega’s murder conviction. The court found that the prosecutor’s noncommittal statements to witnesses about considering their cooperation in future plea deals did not significantly undermine their credibility, as the jury was already aware of their potential motives. Additionally, evidence of Susan Jones’s memory problems was deemed not material, as it did not sufficiently undermine her testimony or the overall case against Rega. View "Rega v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

A Philadelphia police officer stopped Sunny Sok for making an illegal right turn. During the stop, the officer discovered that Sok's vehicle had an expired registration and mistakenly believed there was an active arrest warrant for Sok. The officer arrested Sok and claimed to smell marijuana from the vehicle, leading to a search that uncovered narcotics and a firearm. Sok was charged with drug and firearm offenses and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was unlawful.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held a suppression hearing and found the officer's testimony about the marijuana odor not credible, thus ruling there was no probable cause for the search. However, the court denied Sok's motion to suppress, concluding that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered under Philadelphia’s Live Stop Policy, which mandates impounding unregistered vehicles and conducting inventory searches.Sok appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the inevitable-discovery doctrine should not apply because the Government did not prove that impoundment of his vehicle was lawful or inevitable under the Live Stop Policy. The Third Circuit noted that Sok failed to raise these arguments in the District Court and thus could not consider them unless Sok showed good cause for the failure. The court found that Sok did not demonstrate good cause, as his counsel's misunderstanding of the law did not suffice. Consequently, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, upholding Sok's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Sok" on Justia Law

Joseph Johnson was convicted of making a false statement and aggravated identity theft after he used a lawyer’s signature without consent to file an exhibit in federal court. This exhibit accused a plaintiff in a separate case of underreporting taxable income. The government prosecuted Johnson, and a jury convicted him. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit later vacated his conviction, finding that the government failed to prove the materiality of Johnson’s false statement.Johnson then sought compensation under 28 U.S.C. § 1495, which requires proving that he did not cause his own prosecution through misconduct or neglect. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied his petition, concluding that Johnson’s use of the lawyer’s signature was misconduct that directly led to his prosecution.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 Johnson’s misconduct was a but-for cause of his prosecution, meaning that if he had not filed the exhibit using the lawyer’s signature, the government would not have prosecuted him. Therefore, Johnson could not satisfy the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a)(2) that he did not cause his own prosecution by misconduct or neglect. The court emphasized that the statutory language did not incorporate proximate causation principles and that Johnson’s actions directly led to his prosecution. Consequently, Johnson was not entitled to a certificate of innocence or compensation. View "USA v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2016, John O. Kalu, an inmate at FCI Allenwood, alleged that he was sexually assaulted on three separate occasions by Lieutenant K. Middernatch. Kalu reported the first two incidents to Warden Spaulding, who responded that he would investigate but took no further action. Following his report, Kalu was placed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and later returned to the general population, where he was assaulted a third time. Kalu also claimed that he was subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement, including being forced to sleep on a cold metal bunk in freezing temperatures without adequate clothing.Kalu filed a pro se complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Warden Spaulding and Lt. Middernatch, seeking damages under Bivens for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The District Court dismissed Kalu’s claims against Warden Spaulding for lack of personal involvement but allowed the sexual assault claim against Lt. Middernatch to proceed. Kalu later amended his complaint, but the District Court ultimately dismissed all claims, determining that they presented new Bivens contexts and that special factors counseled against extending Bivens remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The court held that Kalu’s Eighth Amendment sexual assault and conditions-of-confinement claims presented new Bivens contexts. It found that special factors, including the availability of alternative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program, Congress’s omission of a standalone damages remedy in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), and separation of powers principles, counseled against extending Bivens liability. The court also agreed that Kalu’s complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim against Warden Spaulding for deliberate indifference or failure to protect. View "Kalu v. Spaulding" on Justia Law

Rose McAvoy, an undergraduate student at Dickinson College, alleged that the college violated Title IX and breached its contract by failing to respond adequately to her sexual assault claim. McAvoy reported that she was sexually assaulted by a fellow student, TS, in October 2017. She initially did not disclose TS's name but later requested a formal Title IX investigation in December 2017. Dickinson initiated an investigation, issued a no-contact directive, and provided McAvoy with various accommodations and support services.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of Dickinson College. The court found that McAvoy failed to produce sufficient evidence that Dickinson acted with deliberate indifference under Title IX and did not show sufficient evidence of breach of contract damages. The court noted that Dickinson's response, including the investigation and accommodations provided, was not clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.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 Dickinson's actions, including the thorough investigation and the support provided to McAvoy, did not constitute deliberate indifference. The court emphasized that the investigation's length, while longer than the college's sixty-day objective, was justified by the need for thoroughness and fairness. Additionally, the court found no evidence that the lack of written notice about the investigation's delay caused McAvoy's claimed injuries, such as encountering TS on campus or delaying her graduation.The Third Circuit concluded that Dickinson's response to McAvoy's assault claim was not clearly unreasonable and that McAvoy did not establish a causal connection between the alleged breach of contract and her damages. Therefore, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Dickinson College. View "McAvoy v. Dickinson College" on Justia Law