Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Florida Legislature passed the Combatting Violence, Disorder, and Looting, and Law Enforcement Protection Act, also known as House Bill 1 (“HB 1”), 2021 Fla. Leg. Sess. Laws Serv. ch. 2021-6. HB 1 redefined the crime of “riot.” After HB 1’s passage, Dream Defenders and other organizations that lead protests for racial justice challenged the new definition as unconstitutional, alleging that it infringed their members’ First Amendment right to engage in peaceful protest. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs that the new statutory definition was vague and overbroad and, therefore likely to chill or deter their members’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. The court entered a preliminary injunction that prevented the defendants, Governor DeSantis and three sheriffs, from taking any steps to enforce the law using the new definition.   The Eleventh Circuit deferred its decision as to the preliminary injunction in this case until the Florida Supreme Court has had the opportunity to consider the following certified question:What meaning is to be given to the provision of Florida Stat. § 870.01(2) making it unlawful to “willfully participate[] in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in . . . [i]njury to another person; . . . [d]amage to property; . . . or [i]mminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property”? View "Dream Defenders, et al v. Governor of the State of Florida, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant challenges his convictions of healthcare fraud, illegal kickbacks, and money laundering and the related restitution award and forfeiture judgment. After Defendant filed this appeal, President Trump commuted his sentence of imprisonment and rendered any challenge to it moot. In his remaining challenges, Defendant argued that his indictment should have been dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct, that the district court erroneously admitted expert opinion testimony against him, that the admissible evidence against him was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and that the restitution award and forfeiture judgment should be vacated.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that that the presidential commutation renders Defendant’s appeal of his prison sentence moot but does not otherwise affect his appeal. Second, the court explained that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to dismiss the indictment or to disqualify the prosecutors due to misconduct. Third, the court affirmed the admission of the expert-opinion testimony. Fourth, the court affirmed the restitution amount as not clearly erroneous. And fifth, the court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Defendant of money laundering and that the forfeiture judgment based on money laundering was lawfully calculated. View "USA v. Philip Esformes" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of producing and possessing child pornography in violation, respectively, of 18 U.S.C. Sections 2251(a) and 2252A(a)(5)(b). On appeal, Defendant claimed raised three grounds of error, 1.) the government failed to trigger federal jurisdiction; 2.) the district court erred when it discharged an impaneled-but-not-yet sworn jury in his absence, and 3.) the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding that by transferring content from his phone to a hard drive that was manufactured overseas, federal jurisdiction was triggered. The court noted that Defendant's counsel consented to the jury not being sworn and that doing so outside of his presence didn't raise constitutional concerns. Finally, the court found the evidence presented by the government to be sufficient to support Defendant's convictions. View "USA v. Clark Downs" on Justia Law

Defendant, the School Board of St. Johns County (the “School Board”), is responsible for providing “proper attention to health, safety, and other matters relating to the welfare of students” within the St. Johns County School District (the “School District”). Plaintiff, is a transgender boy. The case involves the practice of separating school bathrooms based on biological sex. This appeal required the court to determine whether separating the use of male and female bathrooms in public schools based on a student’s biological sex violates (1) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Sections 1, and (2) Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. The district court enjoined the School Board from prohibiting Plaintiff’s use of the male bathrooms and granted Plaintiff $1,000 in compensatory damages.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s order. The court explained that commensurate with the plain and ordinary meaning of “sex” in 1972, Title IX allows schools to provide separate bathrooms on the basis of biological sex. That is exactly what the School Board has done in this case; it has provided separate bathrooms for each of the biological sexes. And to accommodate transgender students, the School Board has provided single-stall, sex-neutral bathrooms, which Title IX neither requires nor prohibits. Nothing about this bathroom policy violates Title IX. Further, the court wrote that whether Title IX should be amended to equate “gender identity” and “transgender status” with “sex” should be left to Congress—not the courts. View "Drew Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida" on Justia Law

Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd. obtained the injunction barring the Florida Surgeon General from enforcing a prohibition against businesses requiring proof of vaccination as a condition of service. But Norwegian recently filed a suggestion of mootness stating that it no longer requires proof of vaccinations on its cruises. Yet, Norwegian’s filings make clear that it has not suspended its vaccination requirements permanently or categorically. It also continues to defend its entitlement to equitable relief by asking us to leave the preliminary injunction intact.   The Eleventh Circuit denied Norwegian’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The court explained that it agrees with the Surgeon General that a “live dispute” exists because Norwegian has not established that it has relaxed its vaccination requirements permanently or categorically. “The possibility that a party may change its mind in the future is sufficient to preclude a finding of mootness.” The court explained Norwegian has offered no evidence of its vaccine policies or its intentions for the future beyond the boilerplate statement that it is not requiring COVID-19 vaccination for now and for the foreseeable future. Indeed, Norwegian appears to concede that it has not abolished its policy forevermore.’The court saw no reason to believe that Norwegian will not seek to reinstate its policy given its continued insistence that the Florida law is unconstitutional. View "Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd, et al. v. State Surgeon General" on Justia Law

Petitioner is a Florida prisoner serving three death sentences. After pursuing a direct appeal and postconviction relief in the Florida state courts, Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, alleging, in relevant part, that his counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance during the penalty phase. After the district court denied Petitioner’s Section 2254 petition on the merits, the Eleventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on one issue: “Whether the district court erred in denying Jennings’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the penalty phase of his capital trial by failing to conduct further investigation into Petitioner’s childhood and background.”   The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that Petitioner failed to establish prejudice was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, and the court affirmed on that ground. The court wrote that given the facts of this case, it was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude that Defendant was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to present the mitigation evidence in question during the penalty phase. As an initial matter, there is a significant probability that much of the omitted mitigation evidence, when combined with that adduced at trial, would have undermined some of the mitigating factors that the trial court found. Furthermore, there were significant aggravating factors present in this case. View "Brandy Bain Jennings v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff as pulled over by a deputy of the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office for erratic driving. During the stop, the deputy noticed an open container of beer and decided to issue a warning citation. The deputy wrote—but never delivered—the ticket. Instead, a few minutes into the stop, he ordered Plaintiff out of the truck so he could walk his drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle. Plaintiff resisted the deputy’s commands verbally and then physically. The deputy arrested him for obstruction and Plaintiff suffered minor injuries. His truck was searched, but no drugs were found. The obstruction charge was later dismissed. A couple years after this encounter, Plaintiff filed claims against the deputy and the Jackson County Sheriff under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Florida common law.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated he district court’s summary judgment on the Section 1983 claim against the deputy, but only with respect to the issue of whether the deputy unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop in violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court also vacated the district court’s summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim against both the deputy and the Jackson County Sheriff, but only with respect to the issues of whether the deputy tortiously detained Plaintiff by (1) unlawfully prolonging the traffic stop and (2) arresting Plaintiff without probable cause. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in all other respects. View "Michael Baxter v. Louis Roberts, III, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff a veteran currently imprisoned by the state of Florida, sued prison and state officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that they violated his rights under Section 5301 by taking his VA benefits from his inmate account to satisfy liens and holds stemming from medical, legal, and copying expenses he had incurred in prison. Plaintiff also sought to enjoin a Florida administrative rule requiring that inmates have their VA benefits sent directly to their inmate accounts for prison officials to honor the funds’ protected status, which Plaintiff contended violates Section 5301, thereby running afoul of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. After dismissing some of Defendants, the district court granted qualified immunity to those remaining. It also found that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge Florida’s administrative rule.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that Plaintiff lacks standing because he has failed to show a “real” and “immediate” threat of future injury from complying with the Florida Direct Deposit Rule, pointing only to injuries in the distant past. Although it appears that Plaintiff initially suffered concrete harm when he transitioned to keeping two addresses on file with the VA (i.e., receiving VA checks several months late in the spring of 2013), that harm occurred only in the immediate aftermath of the address change—over nine years ago. Thus the court held that because Plaintiff has not shown a “real or immediate threat” of future injury from keeping two addresses to comply with Florida’s administrative rule, he lacks standing to challenge it. View "John David Wilson, Jr. v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen and a U.S. national as that term is defined in 22 U.S.C. Section 6023(15). He claims to be the “rightful owner of an 82.5% interest in certain commercial waterfront real property in the Port of Santiago de Cuba,” identified by the Cuban government as La Marítima and Terminal Naviera. At issue on appeal is whether Plaintiff has Article III standing to assert his claims against Carnival and Royal Caribbean, and if so, whether those claims have merit.   The Eleventh Circuit concluded that Plaintiff has standing to assert his Title III claims, but that those claims fail on the merits. The court, therefore, affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of Carnival and Royal Caribbean. The court explained that the claims fail under Section 6082(a)(4)(B) of the Act because the Cuban government confiscated La Marítima prior to March 12, 1996, and because Plaintiff acquired his interest in the property through inheritance after that date. View "Javier Garcia-Bengochea v. Carnival Corporation" on Justia Law

The Trump administration announced that it would not suspend the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (known as the “Helms-Burton Act”) for the first time since its enactment in 1996. Shortly after this announcement, the cause of action created by Title III of the Helms-Burton Act became fully effective in U.S. courts. Plaintiffs in this case Title III against several entities that own and operate travel websites, including Booking.com BV and Booking Holdings, Inc. (the Booking Entities), and Expedia Group, Inc., Hotels.com L.P., Hotels.com GP, and Orbitz, LLC (the Expedia Entities). Plaintiffs alleged that they are U.S. nationals and living heirs to separate beach-front properties nationalized by the Cuban government after the 1959 revolution According to the complaint, the Booking Entities and Expedia Entities trafficked in those properties on their travel booking websites.   The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Title III claims without leave to amend, ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants under the relevant provisions of Florida’s longarm statute. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained that based on the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint, the district court has specific personal jurisdiction over the Booking Entities and Expedia Entities pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 48.193(1)(a)(2), and the exercise of such jurisdiction does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs also have plausibly alleged Article III standing. View "Mario Del Valle, et al. v. Trivago GMBH, et al." on Justia Law