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

Brian Trematore Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (Trematore) entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 25 (Local 25) for a project at High-Tech High School in Secaucus, New Jersey. The CBA, initially formed under § 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), was later converted to a § 9(a) agreement when Local 25 demonstrated majority status. The CBA included an evergreen clause, automatically renewing unless terminated with notice, and a non-repudiation clause. Trematore ceased employing Local 25 members in September 2018 and later subcontracted work to non-union workers, leading to grievances and an unfair labor practice charge by Local 25.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Trematore's motion for judgment and granted Local 25's cross-motion, holding that the CBA remained in effect due to the evergreen provision and non-repudiation clause. The court found that Trematore could not repudiate the CBA under the one-employee unit rule and that the grievance regarding subcontracting was arbitrable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment. The appellate court held that Trematore was bound by the CBA through its evergreen provision and non-repudiation clause, making its attempted repudiation ineffective. The court also held that the grievance concerning subcontracting was arbitrable, as it fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the CBA. The court concluded that the CBA remained in effect and that Trematore was not entitled to injunctive relief. View "Brian Trematore Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 25" on Justia Law

A federal immigration agent, Keith Slatowski, was injured when his Sig Sauer P320 pistol fired a bullet into his hip and out his thigh during a training session. Slatowski claimed he did not touch the trigger, only the grip, and argued that the gun's design, which lacks an external safety, made it prone to accidental discharge. He sued Sig Sauer, alleging that the gun was defectively designed and that a different safety design, such as a tabbed trigger, would have prevented the accident.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania excluded the causation testimony of Slatowski's two experts, Dr. James Tertin and Dr. William Vigilante, because their conclusions were based on speculation rather than reliable testing. The court allowed their testimony on the gun's design defects but granted summary judgment for Sig Sauer, reasoning that without expert testimony on causation, the jury could not determine what caused the gun to fire.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court's exclusion of the expert testimony on causation, agreeing that the experts' conclusions were speculative. However, the Third Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the jury could still determine causation based on the admissible evidence and lay testimony. The court found that the jury, with the help of expert explanations of the gun's design, could understand the remaining causation question without further expert testimony. The case was remanded for trial. View "Slatowski v. Sig Sauer, Inc." on Justia Law

Roger Esteban Real, a native and citizen of Colombia, participated in protests in his home country, leading to his arrest and mistreatment by police. Fearing for his safety, he fled to the United States with his family in March 2022. Upon arrival, he surrendered to immigration authorities, who did not issue him a Notice to Appear (NTA) or inquire about his fear of returning to Colombia. He was instructed to attend a court hearing in 2025 and to check in regularly using a cell phone provided by the authorities.Real was later arrested for crimes related to a domestic dispute, and two months after this arrest, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued him an NTA. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him removable and, in July 2023, Real applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ granted him withholding of removal but denied his asylum application, citing his failure to meet the one-year filing deadline and lack of extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delay. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal, agreeing with the IJ's findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government's failure to notify Real of the one-year asylum application deadline did not constitute a due process violation. Additionally, the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review Real's claim of extraordinary circumstances excusing his late filing, as such determinations are discretionary and not subject to judicial review. Consequently, the court denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part. View "Real v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Juan Montas, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States as a toddler in 1996. In 2017, he was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for conspiracy to distribute heroin and was subsequently deported in 2020. Montas reentered the U.S. illegally before April 2023 and was arrested by New Jersey State Police for possession of a false driver’s license, drug offenses, and money laundering. He pled guilty in 2023 to illegally reentering the United States.The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey sentenced Montas in 2024. During the sentencing, the court relied on the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and the hearing transcript from Montas’s 2017 sentencing without prior notice to Montas or his counsel. Montas’s counsel did not object to this reliance during the sentencing. The court imposed a 34-month imprisonment sentence, noting Montas’s previous statements and actions from the 2017 sentencing.Montas appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the District Court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 by relying on information from the 2017 sentencing without prior notice. The Third Circuit reviewed the issue for plain error since Montas did not raise the objection in the lower court. The Third Circuit found that the District Court erred and that the error was clear. However, Montas failed to demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights, as he could not show that the sentence would have been different with proper notice. Consequently, the Third Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "USA v. Montas" on Justia Law

Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey farm, was accused by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) of breaching an employment agreement under the H-2A nonimmigrant visa program. The DOL alleged that Sun Valley failed to provide adequate housing, meal plans, transportation, and guaranteed work hours to its workers, as stipulated in the job order. The DOL imposed civil penalties and back wages totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars through administrative proceedings.The case was first reviewed by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who affirmed most of the DOL's findings but slightly modified the penalties and back wages. Sun Valley then appealed to the Administrative Review Board, which upheld the ALJ's decision. Subsequently, Sun Valley challenged the DOL's decision in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, arguing that the administrative proceedings violated Article III of the Constitution, among other claims. The District Court dismissed Sun Valley's claims, holding that the DOL's actions fit within the public-rights doctrine and that the agency had statutory authority to impose penalties and back wages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that Sun Valley was entitled to have its case decided by an Article III court. The court found that the DOL's enforcement action resembled a common law breach of contract suit, which traditionally would be heard in a court of law. The court also determined that the case did not fit within the public rights exception to Article III adjudication, as the H-2A labor certification regulations primarily concern domestic employment law rather than immigration control. Consequently, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Sun Valley. View "Sun Valley Orchards LLC v. United States Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Safehouse, a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation, was established in 2018 to address opioid abuse in Philadelphia by providing overdose prevention services, including supervised illegal drug use. Safehouse argues that its activities are motivated by a religious belief in the value of human life and that government intervention substantially burdens its religious exercise.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially determined that Safehouse’s proposed activities did not violate 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that Safehouse’s activities would indeed violate the statute. On remand, the District Court dismissed Safehouse’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and Free Exercise counterclaims, reasoning that non-religious entities are not protected by these provisions. Safehouse appealed this dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that the District Court erred in its interpretation. The Third Circuit determined that RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause extend protections to non-natural persons, including non-religious entities like Safehouse. The court emphasized that RFRA’s plain text and Free Exercise doctrine protect any “person” exercising religion, which includes corporations and associations. The court reversed the District Court’s dismissal of Safehouse’s RFRA and Free Exercise counterclaims and remanded the case for further consideration of whether Safehouse has plausibly pleaded these claims. The appeal by José Benitez, President of Safehouse, was dismissed due to lack of appellate standing. View "United States v. Safehouse" on Justia Law

Julio Suarez participated in a scheme to file false federal income tax returns from March 2009 to September 2016. His role involved negotiating the sale of refund checks to check-cashing businesses and providing these checks to his co-conspirators. In April 2018, Suarez was charged with conspiracy to defraud the government, theft of government money, and aggravated identity theft. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government and aggravated identity theft in August 2019.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania sentenced Suarez to seventy months in prison, which was at the top of his Guidelines range. During his sentence, the Sentencing Guidelines were amended, resulting in a lower Guidelines range for offenders with zero criminal history points. Suarez filed a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which the District Court denied, despite acknowledging his eligibility for a reduction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. Suarez argued that the District Court abused its discretion by improperly applying the Section 3553(a) factors and failing to justify an upward variance from the amended Sentencing Guidelines. The Third Circuit found that the District Court had adequately considered the Section 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of Suarez’s offenses, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, and the need to protect the public. The Court also noted that the District Court had acknowledged Suarez’s rehabilitative efforts but determined they did not warrant a sentence reduction.The Third Circuit held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Suarez’s motion for a sentence reduction and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "United States v. Suarez" on Justia Law

Lidia Gomez-Gabriel, a Guatemalan native and citizen, along with her son, sought review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Gomez-Gabriel testified that Guatemalan gang members harassed her for money on multiple occasions and threatened her with a weapon once. After this incident, she avoided the area and had no further interactions with the gang. Fearing for their safety, she and her son fled to the United States in November 2015. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and after being detained for twelve days, they were informed about the one-year deadline to file an asylum application. They filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in August 2017.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their application, determining that the asylum application was time-barred and that the asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT applications were without merit. The Petitioners appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the government that the Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies regarding their asylum and CAT claims, as they did not raise these issues before the BIA. However, the court found that the Petitioners adequately challenged their withholding of removal claim.On the merits, the court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's determination that Gomez-Gabriel's membership in a protected group was not a central reason for her persecution. The court found that the gang's motivation was financial gain rather than animus towards her group membership. Consequently, the court denied the petition for review. View "A. G.-G. v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

CoreCivic, Inc. has contracted with the federal government since 1996 to operate a private immigration detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. In 2023, CoreCivic planned to renew its contract, but New Jersey passed a law (AB 5207) prohibiting new, expanded, or renewed contracts for civil immigration detention. CoreCivic sued, arguing that the law violates the Supremacy Clause by infringing on intergovernmental immunity and being preempted by federal law. The United States supported CoreCivic, emphasizing the detention center's critical role in federal immigration enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of CoreCivic. The court found that AB 5207 interferes with the federal government's discretion in detaining aliens, violating intergovernmental immunity and being preempted by federal law. New Jersey appealed the decision.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 AB 5207 directly regulates the federal government by effectively banning contracts for immigration detention, a core federal function. The court emphasized that the law's impact on federal operations is substantial, as it would cripple ICE's ability to detain and remove aliens efficiently. The court concluded that New Jersey's law violates intergovernmental immunity and is unconstitutional as applied to CoreCivic. View "CoreCivic, Inc. v. Governor of New Jersey" on Justia Law

Adam Urda attended a gathering where he attempted to start a bonfire with motor oil and racecar fuel, resulting in an explosion that injured him, another adult, and a four-year-old girl. The girl was severely injured and required extensive medical treatment. Trooper Jeffrey Sokso investigated the incident, interviewed witnesses, and filed a criminal complaint against Urda for aggravated assault, risking a catastrophe, and recklessly endangering another person. The charges were approved by an assistant district attorney. However, a magistrate judge dismissed the first two charges, and the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the third charge, finding no probable cause.Urda then sued Sokso in federal court for unlawful seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment for Sokso on the abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims but denied it on the remaining claims, rejecting Sokso's qualified immunity defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that qualified immunity protects Sokso. The court found that Urda did not provide any precedent showing that Sokso's actions violated clearly established law. The court emphasized that qualified immunity shields officers unless it is clear to a reasonable officer that their conduct was unlawful. The court concluded that Sokso's actions did not rise to the level of an obvious constitutional violation and that the District Court had defined the right too abstractly. Consequently, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of summary judgment on the remaining claims, granting Sokso qualified immunity. View "Urda v. Sokso" on Justia Law