Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Food and Drug Administration denied Breeze’s Premarket Tobacco Product Applications for its electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Breeze sought a stay of the FDA’s order. Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act “any person adversely affected by” the denial of a Premarket Tobacco Product Application may seek judicial review of the denial, 21 U.S.C. 387l(a)(1)(B). Breeze argued that seeking a stay from the FDA would have been impracticable because the order takes effect immediately and the FDA can take months to consider an agency-level request for a stay.The Sixth Circuit denied the requested stay, finding that Breeze had not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.” Breeze has not made a strong showing that it would likely succeed on its claim that the FDA’s review of its application was arbitrary or capricious nor that the FDA’s denial of its application contradicted the FDA’s nonbinding 2019 guidance. That guidance contemplated more rigorous scientific data than contained in Breeze's application that its ENDS product adequately protected public health. The FDA cited well-developed evidence showing that flavored ENDS products’ special appeal to youths harms public health to a degree not outweighed by the (far-less-supported) effects of adult cigarette smokers switching to e-cigarettes. View "Breeze Smoke, LLC v. United States Food and Drug Administration" on Justia Law

During an investigation into whether Elmore sexually abused a seven-year-old girl, officers obtained and executed a warrant to remove Elmore’s vehicle from his stepmother’s home and search the vehicle. Elmore’s stepmother gave officers a key fob for Elmore’s car. Searches of the car and of a storage unit revealed no evidence. Weeks later, Elmore’s stepmother found that Elsmore had two more key fobs and notified the officers of her nagging suspicions that Elmore was hiding child pornography on one of the fobs. The officers also had a tip from Elmore’s fellow inmate. Aided by a warrant, a subsequent search of the fobs revealed a memory card containing child pornography. Elmore was indicted for knowingly possessing child pornography. Elmore twice unsuccessfully moved to suppress the memory card evidence, then pleaded guilty, preserving his right to appeal the suppression rulings.The Sixth Circuit affirmed Elmore’s conviction (18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2)) and the revocation of his earlier term of supervised released (based on a prior child pornography conviction). Elmore’s suppression argument rests on his view that his stepmother’s actions were the “tainted consequences of law enforcement’s unlawful searches and seizures” but the search of the key fobs was separated from the earlier searches. The affidavit passes constitutional muster. View "United States v. Elmore" on Justia Law

Michigan Department of Corrections inmates may hold formal group services or possess certain religious property only if the Department has formally recognized their faith. Though the Department recognizes the Ifa faith, it is one of only three recognized religions that was denied group services. A group is not guaranteed religious services if there are less than five prisoners within the same security level in a facility; the Department may bar group services if they may pose “safety and security” concerns. When an inmate submits a request for group worship or religious property, the warden must forward the request to the Special Activities Coordinator, who must evaluate the request. The deputy director makes the final decision. Discretion is minimal.Between his conversion to the Ifa faith in August 2015 and filing this lawsuit more than two years later, Byrd sent four requests for Ifa group services and nine items that he considers essential to his faith (a straw prayer mat, herbs, and beads). Although Byrd enlisted the chaplain’s assistance, none of his requests received a response. Byrd sued, alleging violations of his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the suit. The district court erred in viewing the problem as procedural; the long delay is tantamount to a substantive denial. View "Byrd v. Haas" on Justia Law

Wesson was charged with murdering 81-year-old Varhola and attacking (and nearly killing) his 77-year-old wife, after they invited him into their home on February 25, 2008. A three-judge panel convicted Wesson of several charges, including two counts of aggravated murder, and imposed the death penalty. Wesson unsuccessfully sought to suppress his confession to police due to his alleged intoxication and other factors when they questioned him. On direct appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court vacated one of Wesson’s aggravated murder convictions but affirmed his remaining convictions and the death sentence; the court rejected Wesson’s claim that his alleged intoxication vitiated his Miranda waiver.Wesson sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, alleging that he is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia, and the government violated his right against self-incrimination when it introduced his post-Miranda statement. The district court found that Wesson made a credible claim of intellectual disability and dismissed that claim and a related ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim without prejudice to allow the state court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief on Wesson’s second claim. The state courts did not unreasonably apply the law or facts with respect to his confession, which occurred when he allegedly was intoxicated. View "Wesson v. Shoop" on Justia Law

Howell’s girlfriend, Thompson, testified for the government at Howell’s trial. Thompson had pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting Howell in the robbery of a bank in Finger, Tennessee, and aiding and abetting Howell in the attempted robbery of a bank in Reagan, Tennessee. Security cameras at each bank recorded the events and the video footage was shown to the jury. Howell was convicted of armed bank robbery, brandishing a firearm during the robbery, a separate attempted armed bank robbery, discharging a firearm during the attempted robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.The Sixth Circuit affirmed Howell’s convictions and 466-month sentence, rejecting arguments that the district court improperly: interfered with his right to testify; allowed the identification testimony of a bank teller; refused to bifurcate the felon-in-possession charge that was “vindictively added” 16 months after the initial indictment; applied the base offense level for attempted first-degree murder; and imposed a two-level offense enhancement because a victim was “physically restrained.” Although the possibility of being subject to impeachment by the use of a prior conviction on cross-examination may deter a defendant from taking the stand, that possibility does not amount to a constitutional violation. Any error in allowing the teller’s identification was harmless. The firearm charge was brought later because it was based on new evidence. View "United States v. Howell" on Justia Law

Prevent, a group of European companies that specializes in turning around distressed automotive parts suppliers, organized an effort to halt supplies of their parts to obtain better terms from Volkswagen, based in Germany. Volkswagen responded by not doing business with the affiliated companies. Begun in 2016, this litigation initially involved claims of unfair business practices and anticompetitive behavior under German and European law and was handled by German courts. Volkswagen prevailed in most of the suits.In 2019 two members of Prevent, Eastern, based in the Netherlands, and Prevent's American subsidiary sued Volkswagen and its American subsidiary in Michigan, alleging that the carmaker unfairly prevented them from acquiring distressed automotive-parts manufacturers. The district court dismissed the complaint, citing forum non conveniens. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Germany is an adequate forum to hear this case. It appears that a Germany-based antitrust lawsuit would reach more conduct and more injuries than an American suit. German and Portuguese are the languages of the relevant documents. Local interest in the dispute, the location of the injury, the fullness of the court’s docket, preference for trying cases in the place of the governing law, hesitance to apply foreign law, and desire to avoid conflict-of-law problems, predict an American court’s potential “administrative and legal problems” with trying the case. View "Prevent USA Corp. v. Volkswagen AG" on Justia Law

In 2008, FTS technicians filed suit alleging that they were unlawfully deprived of overtime compensation for the prior three years. The district court authorized a collective action; 293 technicians opted in to the collective action. In 2011, a jury returned verdicts of liability and determined the average number of unrecorded hours worked per week by each testifying technician. Based on those findings, the court applied a 1.5 multiplier for calculating uncompensated overtime, calculated damages for all technicians in the collective action, and entered a judgment. The Sixth Circuit upheld the certification of the case as a collective action and the jury’s verdicts but held that the district court erred in applying a 1.5 multiplier, and in failing to calculate the hourly rates to reflect the actual hours Plaintiffs worked.After a remand from the Supreme Court, FTS sought to raise new issues that were unrelated to the recalculation of the hourly rate and correcting the multiplier. The district court barred FTS from raising most of those arguments, recalculated damages, and entered judgment. The court also substantially granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s petition for attorney’s fees. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court was constrained on remand to the specific issues; its mandate rule barred FTS and from raising arguments on judicial estoppel, aggregate judgment, and sufficiency of the evidence. View "Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Sexton reported to Redford Charter Township to begin five days with the work-release program. Cernuto and Dunn were the program supervisors. Sexton was the only woman among approximately five participants. Township policy prohibited supervisors from driving alone with female probationers but Cernuto insisted that Sexton ride with Dunn in the truck. During those rides, Dunn made sexual comments and threats. Dunn later assaulted Sexton. Dunn explained to her that Cernuto had gotten him the supervisor job and that neither “told on” the other. Sexton reported the incidents to the Michigan State Police within weeks. Dunn initially denied the allegations but later told the police that he and Sexton had consensually kissed. Dunn pleaded no contest to criminal sexual conduct. The Township fired both men.Sexton sued Cernuto, Dunn, and the Township, alleging constitutional (42 U.S.C. 1983) and state-law tort claims. On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Cernuto’s summary judgment motion for qualified immunity. There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Cernuto facilitated the assaults; an active participant in a constitutional violation can be held liable under section 1983. The restrictions on Sexton’s physical movement while in the work program were sufficient to create a special relationship between Cernuto and Sexton, giving him a duty to protect her. Sexton’s right to be free from sexual assault was clearly established. View "Sexton v. Cernuto" on Justia Law

To combat the spread of COVID-19, the Ohio government ordered child-care programs to shut down for around two months beginning in March 2020. As a result, Dakota Girls and the other plaintiffs could not use their facilities for their intended purpose—as private preschools. They sued their insurer, the Philadelphia Indemnity, citing policy provisions concerning business and personal property, business income, civil-authority orders, and (communicable disease and water-borne pathogens. The suit sought damages for breach of contract and the insurer’s alleged bad faith.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit, citing the plain language of the policies. A loss of use is not the same as a physical loss. Reading the communicable-disease coverage to not require an actual illness at the premises, therefore, would engender serious inconsistency within the policy. The court declined to consider the policy’s “virus exception.” Dakota Girls has never shown that it had coverage, much less that Philadelphia’s agents knew it had coverage or that coverage was so obvious it could not have been reasonably denied. View "Dakota Girls, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2003, Bass, a Michigan “drug kingpin,” was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 846, and firearms murder during or in relation to a drug trafficking crime 18 U.S.C. 924(j). Bass had murdered a hitman whom Bass had hired to kill Bass’s half-brother. The government sought the death penalty. Bass was ultimately sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of release. In 2020, Bass moved for compassionate release, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the pandemic. Bass claimed that as a 51-year-old African-American male suffering from morbid obesity, he faced a higher risk of severe illness.The district court granted Bass’s request in January 2021 and ordered his immediate release. In March, the Sixth Circuit imposed an emergency stay; the court then reversed on the merits. The district court committed legal errors when it compared Bass’s federal sentence to his co-defendant’s state sentence and gave little weight to the concern that Bass’s release might endanger the public. By analogizing its role to that of a parole board, the court framed the legal question in a manner that Congress expressly condemned when it shifted away from the rehabilitation focus of criminal sentencing. On remand, the court must reevaluate the request based on current circumstances, which have materially changed; in April 2021, Bass was offered the COVID-19 vaccine but refused it. View "United States v. Bass" on Justia Law