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

This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA), which allows certain qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms, and its relation to New Jersey’s more restrictive retired police officer permitting law. The retired law enforcement officers from various agencies claimed that LEOSA provided them with a federal right to carry concealed firearms in New Jersey, superseding the state law. The State of New Jersey argued that LEOSA did not provide an enforceable right and, if it did, it would only apply to officers who retired from federal or out-of-state law enforcement agencies—not to officers who retired from New Jersey law enforcement agencies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that LEOSA does provide certain retired officers who meet all the statutory requirements with an enforceable right, and that right extends equally to officers who retired from New Jersey agencies and those who retired from federal or out-of-state agencies. The court held that the federal statute also preempts contrary aspects of New Jersey law. Therefore, the court affirmed the District Court’s order granting declaratory and injunctive relief to the retired officers, allowing them to carry concealed firearms. View "Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association v. Attorney General New Jersey" on Justia Law

Yahye Herrow, a member of the minority Bandabow Tribe in Somalia, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Herrow, who had been granted asylum in 2000, was ordered to be removed following his 2018 conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the BIA's determination that "Repatriated Minority Somalis" did not constitute a cognizable social group for the purpose of withholding of removal. However, the court found that the BIA had failed to consider evidence favorable to Herrow's CAT claim, which contended that he was likely to face torture upon return to Somalia and that the Somali government would acquiesce to such torture. The court granted Herrow's petition in part and remanded the case to the BIA for a more comprehensive review of the evidence related to his CAT claim. View "Herrow v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled on an appeal by the U.S Government against the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to exclude certain evidence in a child pornography case involving Roderick Long. Long was indicted for knowingly possessing child pornography involving victims under 12 years old, and the evidence in question included a video montage and four photos alleged to have been found on Long's electronic devices. The District Court excluded the exhibits on the grounds of Rule 403, citing the risk of unfair prejudice, cumulativeness, wasting time, and potential jury confusion. However, the District Court made its decision without viewing the exhibits, relying on written descriptions provided by the parties.The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had committed procedural error by not viewing the evidence before deciding on its admissibility, stating that it was far from obvious that the risk of unfair prejudice from the disturbing nature of the exhibits substantially outweighed their probative value. The Court of Appeals further noted that the cumulativeness, potential for wasted time, and possible jury confusion did not make it obvious that the exhibits failed Rule 403’s balancing test. The Court of Appeals therefore vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case back to the District Court for a new Rule 403 balancing after viewing the exhibits proffered by the Government. View "USA v. Long" on Justia Law

In Pennsylvania, four family members, including two elderly parents, were injured during a pre-dawn, no-knock raid by the Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) of the Pennsylvania State Police. The police acted on information about alleged drug sales by a family member, but none of the four injured individuals were suspected of any wrongdoing. They sued the officers for excessive use of force, but the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision. The court found that the officers' conduct was objectively unreasonable as they had used substantial force against individuals who were unarmed, cooperative, outnumbered by law enforcement, not suspected of wrongdoing, and in their own home. Furthermore, the court held that the right to be free from such excessive force was clearly established at the time of the officers' conduct, and that any reasonable officer would have known that their actions were unlawful. Hence, the court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. View "Anglemeyer v. Ammons" on Justia Law

This case involves a lawsuit against the United States for allegations of negligence in a search-and-rescue mission by the U.S. Coast Guard. The plaintiffs, the estate of Aaron Greenberg (who drowned in a boating accident), Adrian Avena (who survived the accident), and AA Commercial, LLC, claimed that the Coast Guard was negligent in its response to the distress signal from their capsized vessel. They argued that the Coast Guard broadcasted incorrect information about the vessel in distress and did not deploy the closest helicopter for the rescue mission.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case, stating that the United States was immune from such a suit. According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to show how the Coast Guard's alleged negligence "increased the risk of physical harm" to Greenberg. The court noted that under the "Good Samaritan" doctrine, the Coast Guard would only be liable if its actions increased the risk of harm or if harm was suffered because of the plaintiffs' reliance on the Coast Guard. In this case, the court found that even if the Coast Guard had done nothing, the outcome would have been the same, thus the Coast Guard did not increase the risk of harm to Greenberg.Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, stating it would be futile as they had not identified any set of facts that could demonstrate how the Coast Guard's actions increased the risk of physical harm to Greenberg. View "Avena v. Avena" on Justia Law

In this case, two New Jersey parents sued various school and law enforcement officials, alleging that their First Amendment rights were violated when they were punished for refusing to wear masks at school board meetings. George Falcone was issued a summons and Gwyneth Murray-Nolan was arrested. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Falcone had standing to sue because his alleged injuries were directly traceable to the defendants who allegedly conspired to violate his First Amendment right to engage in political and symbolic speech. The court reversed and remanded the lower court's order dismissing Falcone's complaint for lack of standing.However, the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Murray-Nolan's complaint. The court held that refusing to wear a mask is not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Further, Murray-Nolan's retaliation claim failed because the police had probable cause to arrest her and she did not link her constitutionally protected speech activities (such as her social media posts) to any of the defendants' allegedly retaliatory actions. View "Falcone v. Dickstein" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a group of former union members alleged that their First Amendment rights were violated when their respective unions continued to deduct membership dues from their paychecks after they had resigned from the unions. The appellants had previously signed union membership applications authorizing the deduction of dues from their paychecks, with the authorizations being irrevocable for a year, regardless of membership status, unless the member provided written notice of revocation within a specified annual window. The appellants resigned from their respective unions after their annual revocation windows had passed, and the unions continued to deduct dues until the next annual revocation window. The appellants argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, which held that public-sector unions charging fees to nonmembers is a form of coerced speech that violates the First Amendment, should extend to their situation. The Third Circuit disagreed, holding that Janus was focused on preventing forced speech by nonmembers who never consented to join a union, not members who voluntarily join a union and later resign. The court further rejected the appellants' due process claims, finding that they had not been deprived of any constitutional rights. The court also dismissed the appellants' contract defenses, finding that they had not alleged that the terms of their original membership agreements entitled them to membership in perpetuity. The court affirmed the District Court's orders dismissing the appellants' claims. View "Fultz v. AFSCME" on Justia Law

Appellant Gilroy St. Patrick Stewart was pulled over by Trooper George Tessitore for driving a vehicle with heavily tinted windows and a partially obstructed license plate, both violations of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had to determine whether the officer unconstitutionally prolonged the traffic stop, thereby violating Stewart's Fourth Amendment rights.Upon pulling over Stewart, Tessitore asked for his driver's license and the vehicle’s registration. Stewart produced an Ohio driver's license and a vehicle that was registered to a Hazel Sparkes of Baldwin, New York. Stewart claimed the vehicle belonged to his aunt. Tessitore then questioned Stewart about his travel plans. During the stop, Tessitore discovered that Stewart had a history of arrests, including a money laundering arrest made by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Tessitore also noted that Stewart was driving on I-80, a well-known drug trafficking corridor, and that there was an air freshener hanging from Stewart's rear-view mirror, often used to mask the smell of narcotics.Stewart was subsequently charged with possession of five kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute, after 20 kilograms of cocaine were found in a hidden compartment in his vehicle. Stewart moved to suppress the cocaine as the fruit of an unlawful search, a motion that was denied by the District Court.Upon review, the Court of Appeals held that the officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he extended the length of the stop, due to a combination of factors including Stewart's evasive and inconsistent answers, the darkly tinted car windows, the car's registration to a third party, Stewart's prior arrests, his travel along a known drug corridor, and the air freshener in his vehicle. As such, the officer did not unconstitutionally prolong the traffic stop, and Stewart's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The Court affirmed the District Court’s order denying Stewart's motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop. View "USA v. Stewart" on Justia Law

This case involves Vertiv, Inc., Vertiv Capital, Inc., and Gnaritis, Inc., Delaware corporations, who sued Wayne Burt, PTE Ltd., a Singaporean corporation, for defaulting on a loan. Vertiv sought damages and a declaratory judgment. Later, Wayne Burt informed the court that it was in liquidation proceedings in Singapore and moved to vacate the judgments against it. The District Court granted the motion and vacated the judgments, reopening the cases. Wayne Burt then moved to dismiss Vertiv’s claims, either on international comity grounds in deference to the ongoing liquidation proceedings in Singapore, or due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The District Court granted Wayne Burt’s motion to dismiss, concluding that extending comity to the Singaporean court proceedings was appropriate.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case. The court clarified the standard to apply when deciding whether to abstain from adjudicating a case in deference to a pending foreign bankruptcy proceeding. The court held that a U.S. civil action is “parallel” to a foreign bankruptcy proceeding when: (1) the foreign bankruptcy proceeding is ongoing in a duly authorized tribunal while the civil action is pending in the U.S. court; and (2) the outcome of the U.S. civil action may affect the debtor’s estate. The court also held that a party seeking the extension of comity must show that (1) “the foreign bankruptcy law shares the U.S. policy of equal distribution of assets,” and (2) “the foreign law mandates the issuance or at least authorizes the request for the stay.” If a party makes a prima facie case for comity, the court should then determine whether extending comity would be prejudicial to U.S. interests. If a U.S. court decides to extend comity to a foreign bankruptcy proceeding, it should ordinarily stay the civil action or dismiss it without prejudice. View "Vertiv Inc. v. Wayne Burt PTE Ltd" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the appellant, Narsan Lingala, was charged with four counts related to the attempted murder of his ex-wife. On appeal, Lingala argued that the District Court made jurisdictional, procedural, constitutional, and evidentiary errors. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Lingala had argued that federal agents had improperly manufactured federal jurisdiction to prosecute a primarily local crime, but the Court of Appeals found that Lingala himself had initiated interstate travel and used facilities of interstate commerce, which satisfied the jurisdictional element of the statute. Lingala also argued that the District Court should have severed the murder-for-hire counts from the witness tampering counts, but the Court of Appeals found that these charges were connected in a common scheme or plan. Furthermore, Lingala argued that the prosecution team should have been disqualified because they had access to documents seized from Lingala, but the Court of Appeals found that Lingala could not show that the prosecution team had relied on these documents. Finally, Lingala argued that letters he had written to his co-conspirator were inadmissible, but the Court of Appeals found that these letters were properly authenticated, not unfairly prejudicial, and not in violation of the Confrontation Clause or hearsay rules. As a result, the Court of Appeals affirmed Lingala's conviction. View "USA v. Lingala" on Justia Law