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

Allstates, a full-service industrial general contractor, employs people throughout the country, subject to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. Allstates must comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) workplace safety standards. It has been the subject of enforcement actions, including a $10,000 fine for a 2019 catwalk injury. In a facial challenge to the OSH Act, Allstates argued that, because the only textual constraint on setting workplace-safety standards is that they be “reasonably necessary or appropriate,” 29 U.S.C. 652(8), OSHA does not have the constitutional authority to set those standards and employers do not have a duty to comply with OSHA’s standards. Allstates sought a permanent nationwide injunction. The district court granted the government summary judgment, reasoning that the “reasonably necessary or appropriate” standard provided an “intelligible principle” to satisfy the nondelegation doctrine because the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld similar delegations.The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding OSHA’s delegation constitutional. The Act provides an overarching framework to guide OSHA’s discretion, and the Act’s standards comfortably fall within limits previously upheld by the Supreme Court. “To require more would be to insist on a degree of exactitude which not only lacks legal necessity but which does not comport with the requirements of the administrative process.” View "Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Su" on Justia Law

Over 20 years ago, taxpayers sued Kentucky and Sunrise, a religiously affiliated organization, for alleged violations of the Establishment Clause by paying for religious services that Sunrise allegedly imposed on children in state custody. The Sixth Circuit remanded the approval of a 2013 settlement. In 2015, the parties replaced monitoring provisions that mentioned Sunrise with general language about “any Agency.” The Third Circuit held, for the third time, that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their Establishment Clause claim but that the 2015 Amendment required new regulations or modifications to existing regulations for implementation, which meant the Amendment violated Kentucky law. In 2021 Kentucky and the plaintiffs jointly moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. Kentucky agreed to pursue new regulations in good faith; certain provisions of the Agreement would not take effect unless those regulations were adopted. The Settling Parties did “not” seek to have the court retain jurisdiction for enforcement, nor to incorporate the Agreement in the order of dismissal.Noting that the motion was filed by “the parties to the sole remaining claim,” the Establishment Clause claim against Kentucky, the district court dismissed the case. The court refused to address the terms of the 2021 Agreement, which was not properly before it. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. “Sunrise no doubt is frustrated to find itself unable to vindicate the legality of its program” but federal courts do not decide constitutional issues in the abstract. View "Pedreira v. Sunrise Children's Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Doe, a University of Michigan student, was accused of sexual assault in 2018. Before the University’s investigation had concluded, he sued. alleging that the University’s disciplinary procedures for cases involving sexual assault violated his due process rights. The district court granted him a preliminary injunction preventing the disciplinary process from proceeding. The Sixth Circuit remanded for reconsideration in light of “Baum,” in which it held that the University’s disciplinary procedures violated due process and in light of the University’s new disciplinary policy implemented in response to that decision.The district court granted in part and denied in part the University’s motion to dismiss and granted in part Doe’s motion for partial summary judgment. The University appealed again, renewing its jurisdictional arguments. Before the appeal was heard, the complainant decided she no longer wished to participate. The Sixth Circuit determined that the appeal had become moot and vacated the summary judgment order. Doe then sought attorney fees, which the district court granted.The University appealed again. The Sixth Circuit vacated, noting that issues of ripeness, standing, and mootness have gone unaddressed through more than five years of litigation. Doe had standing to sue to seek the release of his transcript but that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his remaining claims. Doe was the prevailing party only as to his due process claim seeking the release of his transcript. View "Doe v. University of Michigan" on Justia Law

In 2006, Soto’s wife reported the death of their two-year-old son. Soto admitted that the child’s death was his fault but described it as an accident: he said he had been driving an ATV around his property and had run over the toddler by mistake. Soto agreed to plead guilty to child endangerment in exchange for the dismissal of a manslaughter charge. Soto served his five-year sentence and left prison in 2011. In 2016, Soto went to the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office and confessed that he had actually beaten his son to death and had staged the ATV accident to cover up his crime. Soto was charged with aggravated murder, murder, felonious assault, kidnapping, and tampering with evidence.Soto claimed double jeopardy in a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Jeopardy attaches to an “offence” under the Double Jeopardy Clause, only when a court or jury has the power to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence as to that “offence.” During Soto’s 2006 plea hearing, jeopardy attached to the child-endangerment charge once the court accepted Soto’s guilty plea for that charge; the court lacked power to determine Soto’s guilt or innocence of the manslaughter charge. Jeopardy never attached to that charge. View "Soto v. Siefker" on Justia Law

Pembrook, Johnson, and two others robbed two stores at gunpoint. Each was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), possession of a firearm by a felon, 922(g), and two counts of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 924(c). The 924(c) counts carried a combined 32-year additional mandatory-minimum sentence: seven years for the first count and an additional 25 years for the second.The court granted a downward variance and sentenced each defendant to 33 years: one year each for the first three counts, to run concurrently, plus the mandatory 32 years. The Supreme Court remanded in light of “Davis” (2019), which found 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague. The parties stipulated that new PSRs would exclude the 25-year additional sentence for the second 924(c) count, and revise the defendants’ personal information, including their conduct during incarceration. The court added a five-level enhancement for brandishing a firearm, which applied only after the second 924(c) charge was excluded, U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), and a two-level enhancement for physical restraint of the victims, 2B3.1(b)(4)(b), then resentenced Pembrook to 156 months in prison and Johnson to 168 months.The Sixth Circuit affirmed. This case involved a general remand for a de novo resentencing; the parties were entitled to raise new issues at resentencing, even issues previously waived or forfeited. The district court properly determined that the facts of the robbery satisfy that enhancement. View "United States v. Pembrook" on Justia Law

While facing charges for conspiracy to engage in human trafficking, 18 U.S.C. 1594(c), Pennington improperly communicated with witnesses in the case and was charged with witness tampering, 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(1). The 1594(c) conspiracy charge was dismissed when Pennington pleaded guilty to the witness-tampering charge. The district court applied the U.S. Sentencing Guideline that corresponds with his witness-tampering conviction, which prompted cross-references to other guidelines, including U.S.S.G. 2G1.1, which applies to certain human-trafficking offenses and supplies two possible base-offense levels. Subsection (a)(1) provides a base-offense level of “34, if the offense of conviction is 18 U.S.C. 1591(b)(1)”; subsection (a)(2) provides a base-offense level of “14, otherwise.” Although Pennington had not been convicted under 1591(b)(1), the district court used subsection (a)(1)’s base-offense level of 34 as its starting point and imposed a 29-month sentence.The Sixth Circuit vacated his sentence. Pennington is currently serving his term of supervised release. The district court plainly erred by misinterpreting and miscalculating the Guidelines. Pennington has not been convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1591(b)(1) and no guideline permits us to treat him as if he had been; U.S.S.G. 2G1.1(a)(2) provides his base-offense level, 14. View "United States v. Pennington" on Justia Law

Johnson was the councilman in Cleveland’s Buckeye-Shaker neighborhood for 41 years. Jamison was his executive assistant. For years, Johnson used his position to fraudulently claim federal reimbursements for payments he never made. He also secured employment for his children in federally funded programs, although they were not legally eligible to work in such positions. Johnson deposited their earnings into his own account. In addition, Johnson fraudulently claimed a series of tax deductions. He encouraged and assisted his son Elijah in submitting falsified records for Elijah’s grand-jury testimony. Jamison assisted Johnson in these crimes. Johnson and Jamison were convicted on 15 charges, including federal program theft under 18 U.S.C. 371, 666(a)(1)(A) and (2); tax fraud, 26 U.S.C. 7206(2); and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. 1512(b) and 1519. Johnson was sentenced to 72 months in prison. Jamison was sentenced to 60 months.The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the district court’s loss calculations and to sentencing enhancements for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants, for using a minor, and for obstructing justice. The district court properly admitted “other acts” evidence of prior misuse of campaign funds. Any other errors in evidentiary rulings were harmless. View "United States v. Jamison" on Justia Law

In 1999, Kolov sought asylum and related protections. Kolov was removed to Bulgaria in 2012. In 2014, Kolov reentered the U.S. His prior removal order was reinstated. In an interview, Kolov indicated that he was a member of the “Roma” ethnic group and had been subjected to harassment, abuse, and physical violence in Bulgaria; the police were not interested in protecting the Roma. The asylum officer referred his case for withholding-only proceedings. Before his hearing, Kolov submitted a Form I-589, assisted by counsel, listing the same incidents that he described in his interview. At his 2019 hearing, Kolov was represented by counsel and testified in English. He recounted a 2012 incident for the first time. Kolov’s wife testified that she noticed that Kolov had bruises on several occasions during video calls when he was in Bulgaria. Kolov also submitted statements from family and friends, news articles, and country condition materials.The IJ denied Kolov’s application for relief, finding Kolov not credible regarding the alleged incidents of persecution; Kolov’s explanation for the omissions, that he was nervous and under stress, was “not credible.” The IJ concluded that Kolov failed to show government acquiescence to torture. The BIA found that Kolov’s omissions were substantially related to his claim and rendered him not credible. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. The BIA’s decision contains no legal error. View "Kolov v. Garland" on Justia Law

Jarrett produces Tezos tokens cryptocurrency by “staking.” Jarrett claims staking uses existing Tezos tokens and computing power to produce new tokens, so he owes tax on the tokens only when he sells or transfers them and “realizes” income, 26 U.S.C. 61(a). The IRS's position was that Jarrett realized income when he received each token. Jarrett’s 2019 staking yielded 8,876 Tezos tokens; he “did not sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of these tokens during 2019.” He reported those tokens as income and paid tax, then asked the IRS for a refund ($3,793). After six months, Jarrett filed a refund lawsuit, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(1), seeking a judgment that Jarrett was entitled to a refund; costs and attorney’s fees; and an injunction preventing the IRS “from treating tokens created by the Jarretts as income.”The Attorney General approved Jarrett’s refund request. The IRS issued a $4,001.83 refund check and a “Notice of Adjustment.” Preferring to litigate the case to judgment, Jarrett has “not cashed, and [does] not intend to cash, this check.” The district court dismissed the case as moot. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Refund lawsuits exist for a single purpose: “the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected.” The IRS satisfies its repayment obligation when it issues and mails a refund check for the full amount of the overpayment. View "Jarrett v. United States" on Justia Law

LG Chem manufactured the LG HG2 18650 lithium-ion batteries that exploded in Sullivan’s pocket and caused him severe second- and third-degree burns. Sullivan obtained the batteries from a vape store in Michigan to use for his e-cigarette device. In Sullivan’s suit, LG Chem, a South Korean company, opposed personal jurisdiction, arguing that exercising personal jurisdiction over it in Michigan would be improper under Michigan’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause. Limited discovery revealed that LG sent at least two shipments of 18650 batteries directly into Michigan and had executed “two supplier agreements . . . with Michigan companies relating to 18650 batteries.” Neither party addressed whether any of the 18650 batteries that LG shipped into Michigan was ultimately one of the batteries that injured Sullivan.The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the suit. LG urged too narrow a view of personal jurisdiction. The Michigan district court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over LG because it directly shipped its 18650 batteries into the state and entered into two supplier contracts with Michigan companies for 18650 batteries. The court noted that other courts have exercised personal jurisdiction over LG when LG conducts business related to its 18650 batteries in or ships its 18650 batteries into the forum state. View "Sullivan v. LG Chem Ltd." on Justia Law