Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.

New case! Last year, Texas passed a law prohibiting municipalities from prohibiting home businesses, so long as they don't cause parking or traffic issues. And yet! The City of Venus says IJ client Rosi Paredes cannot open a daycare (with a max of 6 kids) lest vehicles parked out front for a few minutes during pick up and drop off discommode the community. Rosi even offered to stagger arrival and departure times and have parents park in the driveway. That's bananas! Rosi is state-licensed and inspected; she has lots of experience; and her neighbors are eager to enroll their kids with someone they trust close to their homes. Click here to learn more.

New on the Short Circuit podcast: Interested in how to hide several kilos of contraband in a minivan but don't have time to watch The French Connection? Our episode is shorter.

1. California conservation group publishes a report recommending against consuming American lobster because, it says, fishing practices endanger right whales. Unsurprisingly, Maine lobster fishers disagree. Many would consider that just a difference of opinion; but for litigious lobstermen, it's supposedly defamation. First Circuit: The "group defamation rule" bars this suit because general statements about a large group generally aren't defamatory against the individual members.
2. You may wonder what could have turned out differently for Sebastian Flyte, of Brideshead Revisited, if London bobbies hadn't caught him drunk driving. The same may be true of a Pennsylvania man who was convicted of two DUIs over 20 years ago and now can't own a firearm. Third Circuit (en banc): Wonder no more as disarming him is unconstitutional. Concurrence: For this guy, sure, but in the future the gov't has set up an administrative process that'll let us get out of ruling on these. Dissent: Cars, like guns, are dangerous.
3. An old DUI may be one thing, but if you're convicted of "terroristic threats" you ain't ever getting your gun rights back, says the Third Circuit (en banc). And that's true even though some states used to bar tramps from owning guns because they were "outside the social and political order." Concurrence 1: Felons are all the same. Concurrence 2: Maybe we shouldn't be relying on old laws that excluded minorities from firearms ownership? Dissent: I get this crime sounds bad, but the dude did the time and now just wants his rights back.
4. Fairfax County and Arlington, Va. school districts adopt bathroom and overnight-stay policies allowing students to use the facilities "consistent with the student's gender identity." Feds: That's a Title IX violation. Schools: Actually, not having those policies would be a Title IX violation. Feds: Whatever, we're cutting your funding. The schools sue. District court: Too bad I'm not the Court of Claims. Fourth Circuit: For an injunction district court is fine. Remanded. Dissent: "Plaintiffs cannot bypass Congress' choice and sneak into district court by dressing up a contract claim in statutory clothes."
5. Since 1998, USAC, a private corporation established by the FCC, has administered the collecting of billions of dollars from telecom companies for use ensuring universal service in rural and underserved areas. Fifth Circuit: But Congress didn't specifically authorize USAC, nor did Congress having USAC run some temporary programs during the pandemic belatedly ratify it. So the FCC is going to have to have another look at its Fourth Quarter 2025 contribution factor.
6. Home renter in Jackson, Mich. objects to code inspectors entering her home for a suspicionless inspection based on an administrative warrant. She's arrested for obstruction, charges are dropped, then she sues the arresting officials for violating the Fourth Amendment by arresting her without probable cause. Sixth Circuit (unpublished): May I introduce you to the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity?
7. Milwaukee officer runs red light, kills motorist. He didn't see the light change because he was either looking at his phone—he'd been sexting on a dating app—or at his computer. District court: Might be a substantive due process violation. Seventh Circuit: Cancel the trial. This doesn't shock the conscience. (Negligence claims were reportedly settled for the max under state law, $500k.)
8. In 2019, mom wins at custody hearing, but both kids want to go home with dad. A Taney County, Mo. judge—now unrobed—overhears their argument in the courthouse lobby and threatens to put the kids in foster care. When they still won't leave with mom, the judge has them locked in holding cells. (They leave with mom.) Eighth Circuit (2023): No judicial immunity. Eighth Circuit (2026): And no qualified immunity. That was so obviously unconstitutional that a prior case on point isn't necessary. The jury verdict stands. (IJ filed an amicus brief at each stage, urging these results.)
9. California's No Vigilantes Act requires non-uniformed federal law-enforcement officers in California to display visible identification. Feds: Intergovernmental immunity! Ninth Circuit: Intergovernmental immunity. A preliminary injunction must issue.
10. Man is convicted of federal murder for his role in the shooting and drowning death of a man off a fishing boat nearly three miles off the coast of California. The Ninth Circuit first takes us on a fascinating jaunt through 200 years of the federal gov't's jurisdiction over crimes at sea, determining that the feds can prosecute murders at sea. Nevertheless, the court vacates the conviction on account of the district court's dismissal of a holdout juror experiencing a mental health crisis. Given that her crisis was based on pressure from other jurors to reach a verdict, a mistrial was the only path forward. (His co-defendant fared poorly in her appeal.)
11. The feds generally have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed in Indian country, but not when both the victim and defendant are Indians. Tenth Circuit (en banc): Overturning precedent, we now hold it's the defendant's burden to prove their Indian status. So these two guys, whose convictions for crimes against Indian kids were vacated because the feds didn't prove their non-Indian status, are now going to have to prove their ancestry, tribal affiliations, etc.
12. This Tenth Circuit (unpublished) opinion is notable less for denying collateral relief to a federal inmate on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, and more for helpfully (and in your summarists' experience, unusually) including Westlaw links for the cited authorities.
13. Tenth Circuit: It's clearly established that officers mustn't shoot nonthreatening people who are armed with something other than a gun. And the distinctions this Oklahoma officer makes between prior cases and his fatal shooting of a man holding a bat are too minor to trigger qualified immunity. To trial this must go.
14. To vote by mail in Kansas, a voter must first send a written application to their county election office requesting a mail ballot. In 2021, the state enacted a law prohibiting private parties from partially prefilling those applications before sending them to voters. District court: The law was enacted with an improper purpose, which can be inferred from contemporaneous widespread public vitriol about mail-in voting. Tenth Circuit: The law's justifications, text, and enactment history reveal no such purpose, so the inference was unreasonable. The law survives intermediate scrutiny.
15. After a pair of wrong-door raids by federal law enforcement in Collinsville, Ill. in 1973, Congress amended the Federal Tort Claims Act to ensure victims of such raids would have a cause of action against not only the individual agents but also the federal gov't. Eleventh Circuit (2024): This Atlanta family, whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team in 2017, does not have a cause of action. Supreme Court (2025): Try again. Eleventh Circuit (2026): Actually, the SWAT team leader does not get qualified immunity, and we should take this case en banc to reconsider our FTCA precedent. (This is an IJ case.)
16. Florida imposes age restrictions on social-media platforms that use "addictive features." Platforms sue, alleging a First Amendment violation, and get a preliminary injunction. Eleventh Circuit: Reversed! The law is subject—and likely to survive—intermediate scrutiny. (Ed.: Judge Newsom has a very interesting self-concurrence about the continued viability of as-applied challenges under intermediate scrutiny in the wake of a curious footnote in the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J.)
17. Déjà vu! Georgia imposes age restrictions on social-media platforms. Platforms sue, alleging a First Amendment violation, and get a preliminary injunction. Eleventh Circuit: Reversed! Plaintiffs put all their eggs in the "facial challenge" basket at the PI stage, and they just didn't build the necessary record.
18. Admission to the Florida bar costs $700 if you apply soon after law school. But if you've been a member of another state's bar for more than a year, the cost jumps to $1.6k and can go as high as $3k depending on the applicant's years of admission. Members of the bars of New Jersey and Michigan sue, alleging that the law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. Eleventh Circuit: Nope. The law treats applicants alike, and "[t]here's just more to investigate for experienced applicants than there is for new ones."
19. And in en banc news, the Fifth Circuit (10-7) will not reconsider its decision that Texas's no-snapping-pics-in-bathrooms statute likely doesn't violate the First Amendment rights of a woman who photographed a transgender politician hand-washing in the women's restroom of the Texas State Capitol.

Bananas! The City of Grapevine, Tex. has ordered a learning pod run by a teacher with nearly 30 years' experience to vacate its rented space in the offices of a local museum until 10 pages of outrageous and costly demands (like rezoning and renovating) are met. This month, IJ sent the city a letter urging them to knock it off.

Nuts! The Town of Ogunquit, Me., a touristy spot with no shortage of whimsical yard art, has fined a family nearly $2k for having tin roosters in their yard because, it is said, the roosters are unpermitted advertising for the family's small business, a breakfast restaurant that's attached to their home. In fact, the roosters are lawn art that have become symbols of autism awareness; their six-year-old autistic daughter has found comfort in them during transitions to and from the school bus. This month, IJ sent the town a letter urging them to knock it off.

The post Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal appeared first on Reason Magazine.