Circuit Scoop -- February 2025
A roundup of some of the most significant decisions to come out of the Federal Courts of Appeals
In a series of recent decisions, federal courts across the United States have addressed a range of significant legal issues, from civil rights and constitutional law to administrative authority and criminal justice. These cases reflect the judiciary’s ongoing role in interpreting federal statutes, balancing individual rights against governmental power, and resolving contentious social and political questions. Among them are Griffith v. EL Paso County, which examined Fourth Amendment protections in the context of abusive strip searches, and Texas v. Trump, which explored the scope of presidential authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. These rulings illustrate the courts’ involvement in shaping public policy and addressing complex legal challenges in a politically and socially divided landscape.
A notable trend in these cases is the judiciary’s emphasis on textualism and strict statutory interpretation, as seen in Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute v. DEA, where the court upheld the DEA’s denial of psilocybin use under the Controlled Substances Act. Another recurring theme is the courts’ willingness to engage directly with controversial issues, such as in Vota v. Fontes, which involved election law and constitutional questions, and Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, where civil rights intersected with educational policies. The prevalence of separate opinions, particularly dissents, also highlights the deepening ideological divides among judges. Together, these cases offer a snapshot of a legal system navigating the complexities of modern governance, individual freedoms, and the evolving boundaries of federal authority.
The most important cases were identified by focusing on key qualitative factors that highlight their legal and societal significance. These factors include the subject matter (e.g., constitutional law, civil rights, or federal authority), the potential impact of the ruling on public policy or individual rights, and the level of judicial disagreement reflected in separate opinions like dissents or concurrences. Cases involving high-stakes issues, such as presidential authority, Fourth Amendment protections, or election law, were prioritized due to their broader implications. Additionally, cases that reversed lower court decisions or set new legal precedents were considered more significant. By emphasizing these qualitative aspects along with quantitative methodology, the most important cases were identified relying both on case level assessments and statistical metrics.
Methodology
Once the top cases were identified by score they were ranked according to the following criteria.
Scoring System
Amicus Briefs Count: Score = (Number of Amicus Briefs / Maximum Amicus Briefs in the dataset) * 25
Majority Opinion Word Count: Score = (Word Count / Maximum Word Count in the dataset) * 20
Separate Opinions:
Dissenting Opinion: +20 points per opinion.
Concurring Opinion: +15 points per opinion.
Area of Law:
Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, Federal Authority: 25 points.
Administrative Law, Criminal Law: 20 points.
Other Areas: 15 points.
Case Outcome:
Reversal of Lower Court Decision: 5 points.
Affirmation of Lower Court Decision: 2 points.
Application of the Methodology
Foote v. Ludlow Sch. Comm.
Amicus Briefs: 25
Majority Opinion Word Count: 10.8
Separate Opinions: 0
Area of Law: 25
Outcome: 5
Total Score: 65.8
Vota v. Fontes
Amicus Briefs: 11.7
Majority Opinion Word Count: 19.5
Separate Opinions: 20
Area of Law: 25
Outcome: 5
Total Score: 81.2
United States v. Pheasant
Amicus Briefs: 8.3
Majority Opinion Word Count: 3.6
Separate Opinions: 0
Area of Law: 20
Outcome: 2
Total Score: 33.9
Pirani v. Slack Techs.
Amicus Briefs: 6.7
Majority Opinion Word Count: 4.4
Separate Opinions: 0
Area of Law: 20
Outcome: 2
Total Score: 33.1
Griffith v. EL Paso Cnty., Colo.
Amicus Briefs: 5
Majority Opinion Word Count: 20
Separate Opinions: 35
Area of Law: 25
Outcome: 5
Total Score: 90
Advanced Integrative Med. Sci. Inst. v. United States Drug Enf't Admin.
Amicus Briefs: 5
Majority Opinion Word Count: 7.1
Separate Opinions: 0
Area of Law: 20
Outcome: 2
Total Score: 34.1
Texas v. Trump
Amicus Briefs: 0
Majority Opinion Word Count: 6.2
Separate Opinions: 0
Area of Law: 25
Outcome: 5
Total Score: 36.2
Risley v. Universal Navigation Inc.
Amicus Briefs: 0
Majority Opinion Word Count: 2.6
Separate Opinions: 0
Area of Law: 20
Outcome: 2
Total Score: 24.6
Ranked Cases (linked to opinions)
Vota v. Fontes – 81.2
Foote v. Ludlow Sch. Comm. – 65.8
Texas v. Trump – 36.2
Advanced Integrative Med. Sci. Inst. v. United States Drug Enf't Admin. – 34.1
United States v. Pheasant – 33.9
Pirani v. Slack Techs. – 33.1
Jumping Into the Cases
#1
Devi M. Rao of Roderick & Solange, along with Meghan Palmer, Wynne Muscatine Graham, Andrew McNulty, and Mari Newman of Newman|McNulty, secured a successful Fourth Amendment decision for a transgender woman who sued a jail over discriminatory policies and an abusive strip search.
Griffith v. El Paso County, Colorado (CA10)
This case was brought by Ms. Griffith, a transgender woman with gender dysphoria, who sued El Paso County Jail and several officials after being housed in a male unit, denied access to clothing and products available to cisgender female inmates, and subjected to an abusive cross-gender strip search during her pretrial detention. She alleged violations of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause, substantive due process, and the Fourth Amendment, as well as claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed most of her claims, but the Court of Appeals partially reversed, affirming some dismissals while allowing her Fourth Amendment claim against a male deputy to proceed.
The key issues centered on whether the jail’s policies—assigning housing based on genitalia, denying commissary items, and conducting cross-gender strip searches—violated Ms. Griffith’s constitutional rights. She argued that these policies subjected her to discrimination, emotional distress, and a heightened risk of sexual assault. Additionally, she claimed that the abusive strip search by a male deputy violated her Fourth Amendment rights and that the jail’s refusal to accommodate her gender dysphoria violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. However, the district court dismissed most claims, finding that her rights in certain areas were not "clearly established," and the Court of Appeals upheld some of these dismissals while reversing others.
The most persuasive arguments came from Ms. Griffith’s Fourth Amendment claim, where she detailed an abusive strip search by a male deputy who made inappropriate and threatening comments. The Court of Appeals found this argument persuasive, ruling that her right not to be subjected to an abusive strip search was "clearly established" and that the deputy’s actions violated her Fourth Amendment rights. This claim was the winning side of her appeal, as the court reversed the dismissal of this specific claim. The decision highlighted the importance of protecting detainees from abusive and degrading treatment, particularly in the context of cross-gender searches. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of her other claims, including those under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, due to jurisdictional issues and a lack of clearly established rights in those areas.
#2
Plaintiffs triumphed as the court struck down Arizona’s restrictive voter registration laws, with Jonathan L. Backer of the U.S. Department of Justice, Danielle M. Lang of the Campaign Legal Center, and Ernest I. Herrera of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund leading the charge, supported by a coalition of attorneys from Mayer Brown, Arnold & Porter, WilmerHale, and numerous other firms and organizations, alongside a robust array of amici, in a substantial victory for additional voting rights.
Vota v. Fontes (CA9)
This case examined a challenge to Arizona’s voter registration laws, specifically H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, which required documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) and residency (DPOR) for voter registration. The plaintiffs, including the United States, nonprofit organizations, political parties, and federally recognized tribes, argued that these laws violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Voting Rights Act (VRA), and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on most claims, finding that the DPOC and DPOR requirements were preempted by the NVRA and violated the VRA, but it rejected the Equal Protection claim. Both sides appealed, leading to a complex legal battle over voting rights and state authority.
The key issues centered on whether Arizona’s voter registration laws conflicted with federal statutes and constitutional protections. The plaintiffs argued that the DPOC and DPOR requirements disproportionately burdened minority voters and naturalized citizens, violating the NVRA’s mandate for accessible voter registration and the VRA’s prohibition on discriminatory practices. The defendants, including Arizona state officials and Republican legislative leaders, contended that the laws were necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure election integrity. The court also had to determine whether the laws were enacted with discriminatory intent and whether legislative privilege had been waived during discovery.
The court found the plaintiffs’ arguments most compelling, ruling that the DPOC and DPOR requirements were preempted by the NVRA because they imposed additional burdens on federal-form applicants beyond what the NVRA allows. The court also held that the laws violated the VRA’s materiality provision by requiring unnecessary information, such as birthplace, and that the “reason to believe” citizenship checks created unequal standards for voter verification. However, the court rejected the Equal Protection claim, finding that the DPOC and DPOR requirements were uniformly applied and did not constitute arbitrary or disparate treatment. The plaintiffs won the decision because the court affirmed the district court’s rulings on the NVRA and VRA claims, vacating only the finding on discriminatory intent and remanding for further analysis. The ruling reinforced federal protections for voter registration and limited states’ ability to impose restrictive requirements that could disenfranchise eligible voters.
#3
David S. Lawless and Nancy Frankel Pelletier of Robinson Donovan, P.C. secured a landmark victory, backed by numerous amici, as the First Circuit upheld the school’s protocol supporting transgender students against parental rights claims.
Foote v. Ludlow School Committee (CA1)
This case dealt with parents who sued a Massachusetts school district, claiming that its protocol allowing staff to use a student’s requested name and pronouns without parental notification violated their fundamental parental rights under the Due Process Clause. The parents argued that the policy interfered with their ability to direct their child’s upbringing, education, and medical treatment. The district court dismissed the complaint, and the parents appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the school’s protocol did not violate the parents’ substantive due process rights and was rationally related to the school’s interest in fostering a safe and inclusive environment for students.
The key issue was whether the school’s protocol, which allowed students to socially transition at school without parental consent, infringed on the parents’ constitutional rights to direct their child’s upbringing. The parents claimed that the policy effectively performed “medical treatment” by supporting their child’s gender identity exploration and that it deprived them of critical information about their child’s well-being. The court, however, found that the protocol did not restrict a fundamental parental right, as it did not override the parents’ ability to make medical or educational decisions for their child. Instead, it created a supportive environment for students to express their gender identity.
The court emphasized that the protocol was rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting students’ psychological well-being and ensuring an inclusive educational environment. The court noted that transgender students often face significant mental health challenges and that affirming their gender identity at school can improve their well-being and academic performance. The school district won the decision because the court concluded that the protocol did not unconstitutionally infringe on parental rights and was a reasonable policy to promote student safety and inclusion. The ruling affirmed the district court’s dismissal, upholding the school’s authority to implement policies that support transgender students.
#4
Daniel Winik of the U.S. Department of Justice led the federal government to victory, as the court upheld President Biden’s executive order mandating a $15 minimum wage for federal contractors, ruling it a valid exercise of authority under the FPASA.
Texas v. Trump (CA5)
This case examined a challenge by three states—Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—to Executive Order 14,026, issued by President Biden, which required federal contractors to pay their workers a $15 minimum hourly wage. The states argued that the order exceeded the President’s authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court agreed, ruling that the FPASA did not grant the President broad policymaking authority to set minimum wages for federal contractors and permanently enjoined the order. The federal government appealed, and the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the President acted within his authority under the FPASA.
The key issue was whether the President had the authority under the FPASA to issue the executive order mandating a $15 minimum wage for federal contractors. The states argued that the FPASA only allows the President to oversee procurement processes, not to set wage policies, and that the order violated the nondelegation doctrine by granting the President overly broad authority. The federal government countered that the FPASA explicitly authorizes the President to prescribe policies necessary to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement, and that the order fell within this authority. The court also had to consider whether the major questions doctrine applied, which limits agencies’ ability to make decisions on issues of significant economic or political importance without clear congressional authorization.
The court found the federal government’s arguments compelling, ruling that the FPASA’s text clearly and unambiguously grants the President broad authority to prescribe policies necessary to carry out the act’s goals of economy and efficiency in federal procurement. The court held that the executive order’s requirement of a $15 minimum wage for federal contractors was consistent with these goals, as it aimed to enhance worker productivity and reduce costs associated with turnover and training. The court also rejected the application of the major questions doctrine, noting that the FPASA’s delegation of authority to the President was clear and that the order involved the government’s proprietary, rather than regulatory, authority. The federal government won the decision because the court reversed the district court’s injunction and remanded the case, affirming the President’s authority to issue the executive order under the FPASA.
#5
Thomas G. Pulham and Mark B. Stern of the U.S. Department of Justice secured a victory for the DEA, as the court upheld the denial of AIMS’s request to administer psilocybin, ruling the decision neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Advanced Integrative Med. Sci. Inst. v. United States Drug Enf't Admin. (CA9)
This case involved the Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute (AIMS) and its co-director, Dr. Sunil Aggarwal, who sought to administer psilocybin, a Schedule I controlled substance, to terminally ill cancer patients. AIMS petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for an exemption from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) registration requirement, arguing that the Right to Try Act (RTT Act) allowed such use without DEA registration. The DEA denied the request, and AIMS, along with two patients, challenged the decision in court. The Ninth Circuit upheld the DEA’s denial, ruling that the decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
The main area of inquiry in the case dealt with whether the DEA acted within its authority in denying AIMS’s request for an exemption from the CSA’s registration requirements. AIMS argued that the RTT Act, which facilitates access to investigational drugs for terminally ill patients, overrode the CSA’s registration requirements. The DEA countered that the RTT Act did not waive the CSA’s registration requirements and that psilocybin, as a Schedule I substance, could only be used in federally approved research settings. The court also had to determine whether the DEA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The court sided with the DEA’s arguments, ruling that the RTT Act did not exempt psilocybin from the CSA’s registration requirements. The court emphasized that the CSA explicitly classifies psilocybin as a Schedule I substance with no accepted medical use, and the RTT Act does not mention the CSA or its registration requirements. The DEA’s decision to deny AIMS’s request was based on a reasonable interpretation of the law and was consistent with its mandate to regulate controlled substances. The DEA won the decision because the court held that its denial of AIMS’s request was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and the petition for review was denied.
#6
Adam M. Flake and the U.S. Attorney’s team scored a major win, overturning a lower court’s dismissal and defending federal authority to regulate public lands under the FLPMA.
United States v. Pheasant (CA9)
This case involved Gregory Pheasant, who was charged with assaulting a federal officer, resisting arrest, and violating a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulation by driving an off-road vehicle at night without a taillight on public lands. Pheasant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the regulation was based on an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The district court agreed, dismissing the taillight charge, but the government appealed, leading to a review by the Court of Appeals.
The central issue was whether Section 303(a) of the FLPMA, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations for managing public lands, violated the non-delegation doctrine by granting the Secretary too much legislative power without an "intelligible principle" to guide its use. Pheasant argued that the statute gave the Secretary unchecked authority to regulate nearly all conduct on public lands, while the government contended that the FLPMA provided sufficient guidance through its mandates for "multiple use" and "sustained yield" of public lands.
The Court of Appeals sided with the government, ruling that Section 303(a) satisfied the "intelligible principle" test. The court emphasized that the FLPMA’s directives—such as managing public lands for "multiple use" and "sustained yield"—provided clear guidance to the Secretary, ensuring that regulations aligned with Congress’s intent to protect and sustainably manage public lands. The court also rejected Pheasant’s claim that the criminal penalties attached to the regulation required stricter scrutiny, noting that the Supreme Court has consistently applied the "intelligible principle" test even in cases involving criminal sanctions. Ultimately, the government won the decision because the court found that Congress had provided sufficient guidance to the Secretary, reversing the district court’s dismissal and remanding the case.
#7
Ninth Circuit The court slammed the door on a shareholder’s lawsuit against Slack, declaring he couldn’t win without hard evidence linking his shares to the company’s allegedly deceptive registration statement, in a victory for attorneys Michael D. Celio, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Matt A. Getz, Daniel R. Adler, Thomas G. Hungar, Jacob T. Spencer, Jason H. Hilborn, Matthew S. Kahn, Michael J. Kahn, and Avery E. Masters of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Pirani v. Slack Techs. (CA9)
This case involved a shareholder, Fiyyaz Pirani, who filed a putative class action against Slack Technologies, Inc., alleging that the company’s registration statement for a direct listing of its shares contained materially false or misleading information in violation of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Pirani claimed that he and other shareholders suffered losses after purchasing Slack shares, which declined in value following service disruptions and disappointing earnings reports. The district court denied Slack’s motion to dismiss, but the Ninth Circuit initially affirmed before the Supreme Court vacated the decision, holding that plaintiffs must show their shares are traceable to the allegedly misleading registration statement. On remand, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, ruling that Pirani failed to establish traceability, a necessary element of his claims.
The central issue in the case was whether Pirani could prove that the shares he purchased were traceable to Slack’s registration statement, which was alleged to contain false or misleading information. Slack argued that Pirani could not establish traceability because the direct listing involved both registered and unregistered shares, making it impossible to determine whether his shares were issued under the registration statement. Pirani attempted to rely on a “statistical tracing” theory, arguing that the high proportion of registered shares in the market made it likely that at least some of his shares were traceable to the registration statement. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that traceability requires a direct link to the registration statement, not just a statistical probability.
Slack’s strongest argument was its assertion that traceability is a fundamental requirement under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. The Supreme Court clarified that plaintiffs must show their shares were issued under the specific registration statement alleged to be misleading. Pirani’s concession that he could not trace his shares to the registration statement was fatal to his claims. The court found his statistical tracing theory legally insufficient, as it failed to meet the statutory requirement of direct traceability. This argument was compelling because it adhered to the strict liability framework of the Securities Act, which limits claims to those directly harmed by the misleading registration statement. Slack ultimately won the decision because Pirani could not satisfy the traceability requirement, and the court reversed the district court’s ruling, dismissing the case with prejudice.
#8
Elliot Greenfield, Alexander C. Drylewski, Samir Deger-Sen, and Jason P. Gottlieb led their teams to a decisive victory, securing dismissal of federal securities claims against Uniswap and its backers in a landmark crypto case.
Risley v. Universal Navigation Inc. (CA2)
This case centered on whether the developers of the Uniswap Protocol, a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange, could be held liable under federal securities laws for fraudulent activities conducted by third parties on their platform. Lead plaintiffs, representing a class of investors who purchased fraudulent "scam tokens" on Uniswap, sued Uniswap Labs, its CEO, venture capital investors, and the Uniswap Foundation, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and various state securities laws. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants facilitated the sale of unregistered securities and failed to prevent fraudulent schemes like "rug pulls" and "pump and dumps." The district court dismissed the federal claims, and the plaintiffs appealed.
The key issues were whether the defendants could be considered "statutory sellers" of securities under the Securities Act, whether the smart contracts used by Uniswap created unlawful contracts under the Exchange Act, and whether the district court improperly dismissed the state law claims. The plaintiffs argued that Uniswap Labs and its investors profited from transaction fees and promoted the platform, making them liable for the fraudulent activities of third-party token issuers. However, the court had to determine whether the defendants’ role in facilitating trades through automated smart contracts was sufficient to impose liability under federal securities laws.
The court found the defendants’ arguments compelling, ruling that the developers of the Uniswap Protocol were not "statutory sellers" of the scam tokens because they did not hold title to the tokens or actively solicit their sale. The court compared Uniswap’s role to that of traditional stock exchanges like NASDAQ, which are not held liable for fraudulent trades conducted by third parties. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the smart contracts themselves constituted unlawful contracts under the Exchange Act, noting that the contracts were collateral to the fraudulent transactions and did not involve direct agreements between the plaintiffs and defendants. The defendants mainly won the decision because the court affirmed the dismissal of the federal claims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary legal connections between the defendants and the fraudulent activities. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the state law claims, remanding them for further consideration under the Class Action Fairness Act.
If you enjoyed this article please consider subscribing and sharing it with friends
Riveting, as usual. Two quick questions: 1) Do you sleep at all? 2) Why hasn’t your head exploded?