CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
STATE OF OHIO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JANET YELLEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of
the U.S. Department of the Treasury; RICHARD K.
DELMAR, in his official capacity as Acting Inspector
General of the U.S. Department of the Treasury;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Defendants-Appellants. |
No. 21-3787 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:21-cv-00181—Douglas Russell Cole, District Judge.
Argued: January 26, 2022
Decided and Filed: November 18, 2022
Before: GRIFFIN, DONALD, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Seeking to mitigate the devastating economic effects of
COVID-19, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA” or “the Act”) in March
2021. See 42 U.S.C. § 802 et seq. ARPA appropriated $195.3 billion in aid to the states and the
District of Columbia. But to get the money, states had to certify that they would comply with
several conditions. One was ARPA’s “Offset Provision,” which forbids a state from using the
funds “to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue” that “result[s]
from” a tax cut. § 802(c)(2)(A). Claiming that this condition amounts to a prohibition on tax
cuts during ARPA’s “covered period,” id., and that such a condition would violate the
Constitution in multiple respects, Ohio brought the present challenge. See, e.g., Mot. for Prelim.
Injunction at 1–2, 5, R. 3. And the district court found Ohio’s objections persuasive,
permanently enjoining enforcement of the Offset Provision on the ground that its terms are
“unconstitutionally ambiguous” under the Spending Clause. Ohio v. Yellen, 547 F. Supp. 3d
713, 740 (S.D. Ohio. 2021).
The Treasury Department appeals, arguing, among other things, that the district court
should never have reached the merits of this case, as Ohio failed to establish a justiciable
controversy. We agree with Treasury. Regardless of standing, the controversy is moot.
Treasury later promulgated a regulation (the “Rule”) disavowing Ohio’s interpretation of the
Offset Provision and explaining that it would not enforce the Provision as if it barred tax cuts per
se. See Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, 86 Fed. Reg. 26,786 (proposed May
17, 2021) (interim final rule); see also Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds,
87 Fed. Reg. 4,338 (Jan. 27, 2022) (final rule); 31 C.F.R. § 35 et seq. We have no reason to
believe that Treasury will not abide by its disavowal of Ohio’s interpretation of the Offset
Provision as it administers the statute. So, we hold, Treasury’s credible disavowal of Ohio’s
broad view of the Offset Provision mooted the case. We thus reverse the district court’s
determination that the case is justiciable and vacate the permanent injunction. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF TENNESSEE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JANET YELLEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of the
U.S. Department of the Treasury; RICHARD K. DELMAR, in
his official capacity as Acting Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of the Treasury; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE TREASURY,
Defendants-Appellants. |
No. 21-6108 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort.
No. 3:21-cv-00017—Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, District Judge.
Argued: July 21, 2022
Decided and Filed: November 18, 2022
Before: DONALD, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. In response to the grave economic challenges posed by
COVID-19, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA” or “the Act”).
Pursuant to Congress’s spending power, ARPA set aside $195.3 billion in stimulus funds, to be
distributed by the Treasury Department to states and the District of Columbia. This appeal
concerns a challenge brought by Kentucky and Tennessee (“the States”) to what they allege is an
ambiguous, coercive, and commandeering condition attached to those funds. Specifically, to get
the money, the States had to certify that they would comply with the Act’s “Offset Provision.”
Its terms bar the States from enacting tax cuts and then using ARPA funds to “directly or
indirectly offset a reduction in [their] net tax revenue” resulting from such tax cuts. 42 U.S.C.
§ 802(c)(2)(A). And a related portion of the Act explains that should a State violate the Offset
Provision, Treasury may initiate a recoupment action to recover the misused funds. 42 U.S.C.
§ 802(e)(1)–(2).
. . .
In closing, we reiterate the central conclusions we have reached today. Treasury’s
credible disavowal of the money-is-fungible interpretation mooted Kentucky’s challenge to the
Offset Provision, and so the district court erred when it enjoined Treasury from enforcing the
Offset Provision against Kentucky. We thus REVERSE the district court’s justiciability holding
as to Kentucky and VACATE the permanent injunction to the extent it bars enforcement of the
Offset Provision against Kentucky. By contrast, we AFFIRM the district court’s injunction as to
Tennessee. We do so because “[c]larity is demanded whenever Congress legislates through the
spending power[.]” Haight, 763 F.3d at 568. Yet clarity is just what the Offset Provision lacks. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
REBEKAH BUETENMILLER; SAMANTHA BILLS; STACEY
GLASS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MACOMB COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants,
WILLIAM HORAN; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC;
WELLPATH, LLC; MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 22-1103 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:20-cv-11031—David M. Lawson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 18, 2022
Before: McKEAGUE, THAPAR, and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Dr. Steven Cogswell sexually assaulted three
women at the Macomb County Jail while working as the jail’s medical care contractor.
Cogswell was fired and eventually convicted of second degree criminal sexual conduct. The
women filed federal and state civil claims against Cogswell, his employer, Macomb County, and
a corrections officer, alleging that defendants knew of Cogswell’s assaults before they were
reported. Due to the absence of evidence supporting this allegation, we affirm the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to defendants. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARK ANTHONY MOSLEY (21-1136); STACEY
PARCELL GIBSON (21-1404); TROY EDWARD BUSH (21-
1408); RICARDO MERCADO-LOZANO (21-2730),
Defendants-Appellants. |
Nos. 21-1136/1404/1408/2730 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:20-cr-00007—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.
Argued: July 21, 2022
Decided and Filed: November 18, 2022
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; KETHLEDGE and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Troy Bush, Stacey Gibson, Ricardo MercadoLozano, and Mark Mosley challenge their respective convictions and sentences arising from a
cocaine, fentanyl, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine drug distribution conspiracy. We
agree with Gibson that his post-conviction letter to the district court asserting a perfunctory
denial of guilt was an improper basis to impose a two-level enhancement for obstruction of
justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Otherwise, we reject defendants’ arguments and affirm their
convictions and sentences. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
JONATHAN DAVID HEWITT-EL,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL BURGESS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellant. |
No. 22-1188 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:19-cv-10652—Sean F. Cox, Chief District Judge.
Argued: October 19, 2022
Decided and Filed: November 18, 2022
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BOGGS and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. To recite the facts of this case is nearly to decide it. Here,
the State of Michigan convicted Jonathan Hewittel of armed robbery and related offenses based
solely on the testimony of the victim, James Lemon. Three witnesses—one of them simply a
conscientious citizen with little relationship with anyone in the case—were prepared to testify in
support of Hewittel’s alibi that he was at home, almost a half-hour from the crime scene, when
the crime occurred. Yet Hewittel’s trial counsel failed to call any of those witnesses at trial.
That failure was the result not of any strategic judgment, but of a simple mistake of fact:
Hewittel’s counsel thought the crime occurred between noon and 12:30 p.m., when Hewittel was
at home alone; whereas the victim twice testified (both times in counsel’s presence) that the
crime occurred at 1:00 or 1:30 p.m.—by which time all three witnesses were present at
Hewittel’s home. Counsel then compounded that mistake of fact with a mistake of law, namely
his belief that evidence of Hewittel’s prior convictions would have unavoidably come in at trial.
Instead, that evidence almost certainly would have been excluded, if Hewittel’s counsel had only
asked. Yet from his opening statement, to his direct and redirect examinations of Hewittel, to his
closing argument, Hewittel’s counsel reminded the jury again and again—in a case where his
client was on trial for armed robbery—that his client had been convicted of armed robbery five
times before.
Thereafter the trial judge twice ordered that Hewittel have a new trial, but the Michigan
Court of Appeals ultimately reversed—based in part on the same mistake of fact (regarding the
time of the offense) that counsel himself had made. In federal court, the district court granted a
writ of habeas corpus to Hewittel. We affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
R. K., a minor, by and through her mother and next
friend, J. K.; W. S., a minor, by and through her parent
and next friend, M. S.; S. B., a minor, by and through
his parents and next friends, M. B. AND L. H.; M. S., a
minor, by and through her parent and next friend,
K. P.; T. W., a minor, by and through her parent and
next friend, M. W.; M. K., a minor, by and through her
parent and next friend, S. K.; E. W., a minor, by and
through his parent and next friend, J. W.; J. M., a
minor, by and through her parent and next friend,
K. M., and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
BILL LEE, in his official capacity as Governor of
Tennessee; PENNY SCHWINN, in her official capacity
as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Education,
Defendants-Appellants. |
No. 22-5004 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:21-cv-00853—Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Argued: July 25, 2022
Decided and Filed: November 18, 2022
Before: NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge. In 2021, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a
new statute (“the Act”) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-1-101 et
seq. Among other things, the Act addresses vaccination, masking, and quarantine decisions. For
example, “[a] local health entity or official, mayor, governmental entity, or school does not have
the authority to quarantine a person or private business for purposes of COVID-19,” Tenn. Code
Ann. § 14-4-101(b), and “a school or a governing body of a school shall not require a person to
wear a face mask while on school property” unless various conditions are met. Tenn. Code.
Ann. § 14-2-104(a).
Immediately after passage of the Act, and prior to seeking accommodation under its
terms, eight minor students with disabilities (a point that is uncontested) filed suit through their
parents, alleging that the new legislation violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
42 U.S.C. § 12101; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, clause
2. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted with respect to the
two sections of the Act cited above. Specifically, the district court enjoined defendants, Bill Lee,
the Governor of Tennessee, and Penny Schwinn, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department
of Education, from enforcing “Tennessee Code Annotated § 14-2-104 ‘Face coverings for
schools’; and [] Tennessee Code Annotated § 14-4-101(b) to the extent that it prohibits local
health officials and schools from making quarantining decisions as they relate to public schools.”
R.K. by and through J.K. v. Lee, 575 F.Supp.3d 957 993 (M.D. Tenn. 2021). Defendants
appealed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
The district court concluded that the Act, despite the inclusion of language that provides
that “[a] school shall, to the extent practicable, provide a reasonable accommodation pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-104(d)(1), fails to comply with
the requirements of either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act |
|