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

The petitioner, Nayanaben Patel, entered the United States in March 2000 under unclear circumstances. She applied for adjustment of status based on her husband's legal status but lied about her manner of entry. She later admitted to lying but provided conflicting testimonies. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her application for adjustment of status and ordered her removal to India, citing factual inconsistencies. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision.The IJ's decision was discretionary and protected by statute from judicial review. The petitioner did not raise any colorable constitutional claims that would allow for judicial review. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the IJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the petitioner's multiple contradictory statements and lack of credible evidence regarding her manner of entry.The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), which bars judicial review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under sections 1182(i) and 1255. The court also found that the petitioner did not exhaust her administrative remedies regarding her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias, and that her judicial bias claim was not a constitutional issue but rather a factual dispute.The court denied the petition for review, emphasizing that the IJ's decision was within his discretion and supported by the evidence. The court also noted a significant error in the IJ's understanding of the difference between a visa and an I-94 form but concluded that this error did not affect the overall decision. View "Patel v. Garland" on Justia Law

The United States Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry sued the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and its Chairman, alleging that the SEC’s partial rescission of a prior regulation did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The regulation in question involved proxy voting advice businesses (PVABs) and their role in the proxy voting process for public companies. The plaintiffs argued that the SEC’s actions were procedurally and substantively deficient under the APA.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment in favor of the SEC. The court found that the SEC’s decision to rescind certain conditions of the 2020 Rule was not arbitrary and capricious. The court also held that the SEC had provided a reasonable explanation for its change in policy and had adequately considered the economic consequences of the rescission as required by the Exchange Act. Additionally, the court determined that the 31-day comment period provided by the SEC was legally permissible under the APA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the SEC’s 2022 Rescission was not arbitrary and capricious because the SEC had acknowledged its change in position, provided good reasons for the change, and explained why it believed the new rule struck a better policy balance. The court also found that the SEC had adequately assessed the economic implications of the rescission, relying on data from the 2020 Rule and providing a qualitative analysis of the costs and benefits. Finally, the court concluded that the 31-day comment period was sufficient to provide a meaningful opportunity for public comment, as required by the APA. View "Chamber of Commerce v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

Johnathan Holt, just weeks before his eighteenth birthday, shot and killed a drug dealer, Quincy Battle, on behalf of the Short North Posse gang. Holt was later paralyzed from the chest down due to gun violence. A federal jury convicted him of murder in aid of racketeering and murder with a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime. The district court initially sentenced him to life imprisonment, but this was later vacated as it violated the Eighth Amendment under Miller v. Alabama, which prohibits mandatory life sentences for juveniles. Holt was resentenced to 900 months in prison.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio initially sentenced Holt to life imprisonment, which was later vacated due to the Eighth Amendment violation. The district court then resentenced him to 900 months in prison. Holt appealed, arguing that his new sentence still violated the Eighth Amendment and was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court had adequately considered Holt’s youth, as required by Miller v. Alabama, and that the Eighth Amendment did not require a more lenient sentence based on his medical condition. The court also found that Holt’s procedural claims, including the district court’s handling of the presentence report and his right to allocute, did not demonstrate plain error. Finally, the court held that the 900-month sentence was substantively reasonable given the severity of Holt’s crime and the district court’s consideration of the relevant sentencing factors. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "United States v. Holt" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of consumers, alleged that Strange Honey Farm, LLC, fraudulently marketed its honey products as "100% raw Tennessee honey." They claimed the honey was not raw, as it was heated during processing, not purely honey, as it was diluted with corn syrup, and not from Tennessee, as it was sourced from Vietnam. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Strange Honey, its owners, and two supermarket chains that sold the honey, asserting fraudulent misrepresentation and violations of various state consumer protection laws.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed the claims against all defendants except one, citing a lack of specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court also denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the remaining defendant and appealed the district court's decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and addressed several jurisdictional issues. The court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's eventual entry of final judgment, after the premature notice of appeal, ripened the appellate jurisdiction. On the merits, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to meet the specificity requirements of Rule 9(b). The court noted that the complaint did not adequately allege why the statements on the honey labels were false or when the statements were made to the plaintiffs. The court also upheld the district court's denial of leave to amend, concluding that the proposed amendments would be futile as they did not cure the deficiencies in the original complaint. View "Greer v. Strange Honey Farm" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, Senator J.D. Vance, and former Representative Steve Chabot, challenged the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on coordinated campaign expenditures. They argued that these limits, which restrict political parties from spending money on campaign advertising with input from the candidate, violate the First Amendment. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Federal Election Commission from enforcing these limits, claiming that the restrictions increase costs, create redundancies, and hinder effective communication and spending.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio certified the constitutional question to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The district court found that the plaintiffs raised a non-frivolous question and established a factual record before certifying the question. The district court asked whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in the Federal Election Campaign Act violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications."The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case en banc. The court held that the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II) remains binding and that the Act’s limits on coordinated party expenditures do not facially violate the First Amendment. The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that changes in legal doctrine, statutory amendments, and factual developments since 2001 undermined Colorado II. The court also denied the plaintiffs' as-applied challenge, noting that it was too broad and would effectively nullify Colorado II. The court concluded that the limits on coordinated party expenditures do not violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications." View "National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission" on Justia Law

Three Kentucky Republican Party county executive committees challenged the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance’s prohibition on expending funds to support a state constitutional amendment on the November general election ballot. The committees sought an advisory opinion from the Registry, which concluded that they could not use funds raised for party nominees to support a constitutional amendment and would need to form a political issues committee for such expenditures. The committees argued that this restriction violated their First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied the committees' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the requirement to form a political issues committee imposed only a minimal burden on their First Amendment rights, justified by the governmental interest in transparency and disclosure. The court concluded that the Registry’s actions met the standards of strict scrutiny, exacting scrutiny, or rational basis review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and granted an injunction pending appeal. The court found that the executive committees were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim. It determined that the Registry’s prohibition on spending in support of a constitutional amendment burdened the committees' political speech. The court applied strict scrutiny, concluding that the Registry’s restriction was not narrowly tailored to the asserted interest in disclosure. The court noted that less restrictive alternatives, such as imposing disclosure requirements on executive committees, could achieve the same ends without restricting speech. The Registry was enjoined from enforcing its advisory opinion against the committees, and expedited briefing was ordered for the appeal. View "Boone County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Chadrick Perry was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. After pleading not guilty, he was detained pending trial. Concerns about his competency led to evaluations by two forensic psychologists, who reached different conclusions. The district court committed Perry to the custody of the Attorney General for competency restoration. Perry experienced significant delays in being transported to a federal facility for treatment. Eventually, he was deemed competent, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, and was sentenced to 57 months in prison.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Perry's motion to dismiss the indictment based on alleged violations of the Speedy Trial Act. Perry argued that the 152-day delay between his designation for treatment and his arrival at the facility should count against the Act's 70-day clock. The district court ruled that the entire period from when Perry was deemed incompetent until his competency was restored was excludable under the Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the entire period of delay resulting from Perry's mental incompetence was excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(4). This exclusion applied even during the transportation delay, thus not violating the Speedy Trial Act. Additionally, the court upheld Perry's sentence, determining that his prior conviction for aggravated domestic violence qualified as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), justifying the increased Guidelines range. The court affirmed both the conviction and the sentence. View "United States v. Perry" on Justia Law

James Conn murdered Savannah Puckett, and his parents, Mollie and Michael Slaybaugh, suffered property damage when police arrested Conn at their home. The Slaybaughs filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking compensation for the damage under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and its Tennessee Constitution counterpart.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed the Slaybaughs' claims. The court ruled that the police actions did not constitute a taking for public use under the Fifth Amendment because the damage occurred while enforcing criminal laws. The court also dismissed the state-law claim, stating that the Tennessee Constitution offers protections co-extensive with the Fifth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Slaybaughs did not state a valid takings claim because the police actions were privileged under the search-and-arrest privilege. This privilege allows law enforcement to use reasonable force to enter property and make an arrest without being liable for resulting property damage, provided the actions are lawful and reasonable. The court found no evidence suggesting the police acted unlawfully or unreasonably. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of both the federal and state constitutional claims. View "Slaybaugh v. Rutherford County" on Justia Law

In March 2020, Metro Man IV, LLC, which operates a nursing home, faced a severe staff shortage due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this, the company implemented temporary hazard pay and hired non-certified nursing aides. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that while the emergency excused Metro Man from initially bargaining with the union, the company failed to bargain with the union regarding the effects of these unilateral decisions once the emergency subsided.An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Metro Man violated the National Labor Relations Act by not bargaining with the union before increasing and then decreasing wages and hiring non-certified aides. The ALJ ordered Metro Man to pay back wages but did not require reinstating the wage increase. The NLRB amended this order, agreeing that the exigent circumstances excused initial bargaining but still required Metro Man to notify and bargain with the union about the changes and their effects once the emergency ended. The NLRB ordered Metro Man to reinstate the wage increase and to bargain with the union before making future changes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the implementation and rescission of the hazard pay were part of a single decision, excused by the exigent circumstances of COVID-19, and thus not subject to separate bargaining obligations. However, the court upheld the NLRB's finding that Metro Man failed to engage in effects-bargaining regarding the hiring of non-certified aides. The court affirmed the NLRB's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "NLRB v. Metro Man IV, LLC" on Justia Law

Michael Harvel, a county official, was convicted by a jury for sexually assaulting seven women he supervised, violating their constitutional rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242. Harvel appealed, raising issues about the timeliness of the charges, the indictment's sufficiency, and the admission of certain evidence.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee initially handled the case. Harvel argued that the most serious charges were not brought within the five-year statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). However, the court found that these charges were "punishable by death" under 18 U.S.C. § 3281, thus not subject to the five-year limit. Harvel also claimed that the introduction of "other crimes" evidence violated the Due Process Clause and Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The district court allowed this evidence, finding it relevant and not overly prejudicial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's rulings, holding that the charges were timely under § 3281 because the crimes included kidnapping and aggravated sexual abuse, which are punishable by death under § 242. The court also rejected Harvel's due process challenge to Rule 413, which allows the admission of other sexual assaults to show propensity, and found no abuse of discretion in the district court's Rule 403 balancing. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of Harvel's motion for a mistrial, concluding that the district court's limiting instructions were sufficient to mitigate any potential prejudice from the inadmissible testimony.In conclusion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Harvel's convictions and the 204-month sentence, finding no merit in his arguments regarding the statute of limitations, the indictment's sufficiency, or the evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Harvel" on Justia Law