U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Holy Trinity’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Although the church was likely to succeed on its RLUIPA substantial-burden claim, the district court acted within its discretion because interim relief was not needed to preserve the case, the requested relief was unclear…

The court held that its prior interpretation of the INA’s sexual-abuse-of-a-minor provision remained binding after Loper Bright and that Islam’s New York conviction matched the federal generic offense as to the conduct covered, age differential, and mens rea.

The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the wrongful-death and survival claims because the complaint did not plausibly allege that FirstEnergy Service retained the kind of control over the demolition work that would create a duty to the contractor’s employee, and FirstEnergy Corp.

The court denied the Riverkeepers’ petition, holding that arbitrary-and-capricious review governs Pennsylvania agency action taken under federal authority in this statutory review proceeding.

The court affirmed Bost’s conviction, holding that his conviction for terroristic threats was sufficient at the indictment stage to support disarmament under the felon-in-possession statute.

The en banc court affirmed summary judgment for Williams, holding that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to his completed, nonviolent DUI conviction because the Government did not establish a historical tradition supporting permanent disarmament for that offense or show that Williams presently posed…

The court held that the settlement agreement is ambiguous as to whether UTC’s cartridge restrictions breached its promises not to impede Sandoz’s launch, requiring trial rather than summary judgment on contract liability.

The court dismissed as moot Summers’s challenge to his criminal-history calculation because he had completed imprisonment and received the mandatory minimum supervised-release term, leaving no available relief.

The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded because a later stock-price rebound cannot categorically establish that an earlier statement was immaterial; materiality requires a fact-specific assessment of the information available to reasonable investors when they made investment decisions.

The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders after finding that counsel adequately reviewed the record and that independent review disclosed no nonfrivolous appellate issue.

The court affirmed partial summary judgment that the 2,243 Westlaw headnotes at issue were copyrightable and that ROSS’s copying of them to train its competing legal-research platform was not fair use.

The Third Circuit granted counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders and affirmed Bowie’s conviction and sentence after finding counsel’s brief adequate and its independent review disclosed no nonfrivolous appellate issue.

The Court held that a district court that has finally determined it lacks Article III subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying action lacks authority to decide a fee motion based only on a contractual fee-shifting provision.

The Third Circuit affirmed Carter’s convictions and concurrent sentences, rejecting challenges to the search warrant, the denial of a new-trial motion and bill of particulars, the admission of evidence, and the procedural reasonableness of his sentence.

The Third Circuit granted the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the denial of Orr’s compassionate-release motion. It concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Orr’s actions defending a corrections officer and his rehabilitation did not establish extraordinary…

The Third Circuit affirmed Carter’s convictions and concurrent sentences, rejecting his challenges to the search warrant, denial of a new trial and bill of particulars, admission of evidence, and procedural reasonableness of his sentence.

The court granted the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the denial of Orr’s compassionate-release motion. It concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Orr’s conduct in defending a corrections officer was not an extraordinary and compelling reason for release…

The court denied the petition for review because it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the agency’s factual findings and the record did not compel a conclusion that removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the petitioners’ children.

The court held that Younger abstention does not apply because the requested injunction concerns a distinct bail issue ancillary to, rather than an injunction against, ongoing state criminal prosecutions.

The Court summarily affirmed the District Court’s denial of Craig Levin’s compassionate-release motion. Applying abuse-of-discretion review, it held that Levin’s health risks, COVID-19-related conditions, alleged assaults, and prior imprisonment conditions did not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for a…

The court affirmed dismissal of Biazzo Dairy’s amended complaint, holding that Pennsylvania’s milk-dealer security requirements do not discriminate against interstate commerce because they impose the same burden on in-state and out-of-state milk dealers.

The Court held that Younger abstention does not bar the plaintiffs’ federal due-process and equal-protection challenges because their requested relief concerns bail determinations ancillary to, and distinct from, the merits of pending criminal prosecutions.

The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Levin’s compassionate-release motion, concluding that the District Court acted within its discretion in finding no extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.

The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of Biazzo’s amended complaint. The Act applies the same milk-security requirements to in-state and out-of-state dealers, so Biazzo did not allege discrimination against interstate commerce and the Pike balancing inquiry ended.

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Jose Santana‑Robles’s motion to terminate his supervised release, holding that the one‑year requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) begins at the start of the current term of supervised release.

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Vestolit and Celanese’s §1782 discovery request, holding that the lower court properly exercised its discretion under the Intel four‑factor test and did not err in its jurisdictional analysis.

The Third Circuit denied James Riley's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that he lacked an indisputable right to the relief sought and that mandamus is unavailable where ordinary appellate review is possible.

The Third Circuit denied Mazie's petition for a writ of mandamus/prohibition, holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such writs to interfere with state‑court proceedings.

The Court denied Riley’s mandamus petition because he did not establish a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief or show that ordinary appellate remedies were unavailable.

The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Santana-Robles’s motion to terminate supervised release because he filed it less than one year into the term he sought to end. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), the one-year period begins with the current term of supervised release, including a new term imposed after revocation.

The court denied Mazie’s petition seeking prohibition or mandamus to interfere with New Jersey state-court proceedings arising, according to him, from an unlawful arrest. The court explained that its mandamus authority is limited to matters in aid of potential appellate jurisdiction and cannot be used to direct state…

The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Vestolit and Celanese’s application for discovery from Shell under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, reviewing the District Court’s decision for abuse of discretion.

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the Batson ruling, the jury instruction on the death‑results element, and the mandatory life sentence based on a qualifying prior felony drug conviction.

The Third Circuit affirmed Bolarinwa’s convictions for forced labor, document servitude, and alien harboring, finding that none of her alleged constitutional or evidentiary errors rose to the level of plain error and that the evidence supported each conviction.

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Gibson’s §1983 claim as time‑barred, holding that Pennsylvania’s two‑year personal‑injury limitations period applies and that the claim accrued at the time of the November 2021 search, not when the conviction was later vacated.

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all of Rachel Alintoff’s federal claims, finding that sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and absolute judicial immunity barred her money‑damage actions, and that she failed to plausibly plead any ADA, constitutional, or conspiracy claims.

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of Frederick Torrence’s §1983 complaint for failure to state a claim, as well as the dismissal of his post‑judgment motions as moot.

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary‑judgment ruling that Marmaxx Operating Corp. was not liable because the plaintiff failed to show the store knew or should have known of the puddle, and it entered a show‑cause order sanctioning counsel for filing a deficient appellate brief.

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the SBA, holding that neither the CARES Act nor the applicable regulations required partial forgiveness of a second-draw PPP loan that violated the Corporate Group Rule.

The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Chapman’s amended complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Chapman’s opening brief did not challenge the District Court’s analysis of the dismissal factors, and the court’s independent review of the magistrate judge’s analysis revealed no abuse of discretion.