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

Tim Daniels, a commercial fisherman in Florida, challenged the constitutionality of regulations by Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) that restrict where and how Florida-registered vessels can harvest Florida pompano in federal waters. Daniels argued that federal law preempts state regulations affecting fishing in federal waters and that Florida’s regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause by only restricting Florida-registered vessels.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment for the FWC, concluding that Florida’s regulations do not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clause, or the Equal Protection Clause. The court also determined that Daniels lacked standing to sue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Daniels has standing to sue because he faces a credible threat of prosecution under Florida’s regulations, which affects his commercial fishing activities. The court found that Daniels’s injury is directly traceable to Florida’s regulations and can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.On the merits, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act does not preempt Florida’s regulations. The court reasoned that the Act allows states to regulate fishing vessels registered under their laws in federal waters when there is no federal fishery management plan or regulations in place. The court also held that Florida’s regulations do not violate the Equal Protection Clause because they are rationally related to the legitimate governmental purpose of conserving and managing pompano stock, and the regulations only apply to Florida-registered vessels, which are within the state’s jurisdiction.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, upholding Florida’s pompano regulations. View "Daniels v. Executive Director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission" on Justia Law

Rhonda Fleming, an inmate at Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee (FCIT), filed a pro se lawsuit against Warden Erica Strong and the United States, alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to her exposure to mold, asbestos, and COVID-19, which she claimed caused severe health issues. Fleming sought injunctive relief and damages under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). She alleged that despite her complaints, the prison officials, including Warden Strong, failed to address the hazardous conditions, leading to her contracting COVID-19 twice and requiring hospitalization.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing most of Fleming's claims, including all claims against Strong, citing that Bivens did not provide a remedy for her Eighth Amendment claim. However, the district court disagreed, finding that Fleming's Eighth Amendment claim was similar to a previously recognized Bivens claim and allowed it to proceed. The district court did not address the issue of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order recognizing a Bivens cause of action. The Eleventh Circuit joined four other circuits in holding that the collateral-order doctrine does not extend to Bivens-extension orders that do not address qualified immunity. The court emphasized that qualified immunity adequately protects government officials from the burdens of litigation and that separation-of-powers concerns with Bivens extensions do not justify immediate appeal. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Fleming v. FCI Tallahassee Warden" on Justia Law

Kristie Williams, a former employee of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for her daughter, who was allegedly sexually assaulted while serving in the Marine Corps. The University approved her leave, but Williams claimed she continued to receive work-related communications and criticism from her supervisors during her leave. This led to her resignation, and she subsequently sued the University, alleging interference with her FMLA rights and retaliation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied the University’s motion to dismiss, which argued that the suit was barred by state sovereign immunity. The court reasoned that Williams might have been seeking family-care leave under the FMLA, for which the Supreme Court had previously held that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Williams’s suit could proceed regardless of whether she sought family-care leave, active-duty leave, or servicemember-family leave. For family-care leave, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hibbs confirmed that Congress had abrogated state sovereign immunity. For active-duty and servicemember-family leave, the court concluded that Alabama waived its sovereign immunity under the plan-of-the-Convention doctrine when it joined the Union, as these provisions were enacted pursuant to Congress’s constitutional authority to raise and support the military. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the University’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama" on Justia Law

The case involves the Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited (IMC) challenging a decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the interpretation of "prior express consent" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The TCPA requires that robocalls must have the called party's "prior express consent." The FCC's 2012 regulation defined this as "prior express written consent" for telemarketing or advertising calls. In 2023, the FCC issued a new rule further interpreting "prior express consent" to include two additional restrictions: (1) consent must be given to only one entity at a time, and (2) the subject matter of the calls must be logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent.The FCC's 2023 Order was challenged by IMC, which argued that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority under the TCPA. IMC contended that the new restrictions conflicted with the ordinary statutory meaning of "prior express consent." The FCC defended its rule, claiming it was consistent with the common understanding of the phrase and within its authority to implement the TCPA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the FCC's additional restrictions on "prior express consent" were inconsistent with the ordinary statutory meaning of the phrase. The court held that under common law principles, "prior express consent" means a willingness for certain conduct to occur, clearly and unmistakably stated before the conduct. The court concluded that the FCC's one-to-one-consent and logically-and-topically-related restrictions impermissibly altered this meaning.The Eleventh Circuit granted IMC's petition for review, vacated Part III.D of the FCC's 2023 Order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court determined that the FCC had exceeded its statutory authority by imposing additional restrictions that were not supported by the TCPA's text. View "Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited v. Federal Communications Commission" on Justia Law

Isaac Industries, a Florida corporation, contracted with Bariven, a Venezuelan oil company, for the sale of chemicals. After Isaac shipped the products, Bariven failed to pay. Later, Petroquímica de Venezuela (Pequiven) assumed Bariven’s debt and negotiated an extended payment period but only made the first payment. Isaac sued both companies for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially dealt with objections about service of process and sovereign immunity. A magistrate judge concluded that effective service occurred but recommended denying Isaac’s motion for default and ordering it to amend its complaint. The oil companies did not object and answered the amended complaint. When Isaac moved for summary judgment, the oil companies argued that no valid contracts existed and that sovereign immunity shielded Pequiven. The district court granted summary judgment for Isaac, ruling that Pequiven waived sovereign immunity by not raising it in its answer and that the commercial-activity exception applied. The court also found that the undisputed facts established that Pequiven and Bariven breached their contracts with Isaac.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the oil companies waived their challenge to personal jurisdiction by not objecting to the magistrate judge’s report and by omitting any reference to service of process in their answers. The court also held that Pequiven waived sovereign immunity by failing to raise it in its answer or motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of fact that Pequiven and Bariven breached their contracts. The court also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the oil companies’ Rule 56(d) motion to defer ruling on the summary judgment. The judgments in favor of Isaac were affirmed. View "Isaac Industries, Inc. v. Bariven S.A." on Justia Law

Troy Olhausen, a former Senior Vice President of Business Development and Marketing at Arriva Medical, LLC, filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against his former employers, Arriva, Alere, Inc., and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. He alleged that the defendants submitted fraudulent claims to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for reimbursement. Specifically, Olhausen claimed that Arriva submitted claims without obtaining required assignment-of-benefits signatures and failed to disclose or accredit certain call-center locations that processed claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Olhausen’s third amended complaint, holding that he failed to plead with the particularity required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) that any fraudulent claims were actually submitted to the government. The district court found that Olhausen did not provide sufficient details to establish that false claims had been submitted, as he did not work in the billing department and lacked firsthand knowledge of the claim submissions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Olhausen adequately pled with particularity that allegedly false claims were submitted under Count II, which involved claims for heating pads that lacked assignment-of-benefits signatures. The court found that the internal audit allegations provided sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy Rule 9(b). However, the court upheld the dismissal of Count IV, which alleged that Arriva failed to disclose or accredit certain call-center locations, as Olhausen did not adequately allege that any claims involving these locations were actually submitted. Consequently, the court vacated the dismissal of Counts II and VI (conspiracy) and remanded them for further proceedings, while affirming the dismissal of Count IV. View "Olhausen v. Arriva Medical, LLC" on Justia Law

Thomas Swinford was shot and killed by Athens-Clarke County police officers after he refused to drop a gun and instead raised and pointed it at the officers. His widow, Jayne Swinford, filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Georgia’s wrongful death statute against seven officers, the police chief, and the county government. The case was removed to federal court.The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified and official immunity grounds, relying on body camera footage showing the events leading up to the shooting. The district court considered the footage and granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the officers acted reasonably and did not violate Thomas’s constitutional rights. The court also denied Mrs. Swinford’s motion to amend her complaint and her motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that the district court properly considered the body camera footage under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine. The footage showed that the officers had probable cause to believe Thomas posed a serious threat when he raised his gun at them, justifying their use of deadly force. The court found that the officers did not use excessive force and were entitled to qualified immunity. Consequently, the supervisory liability claim against the police chief and the Monell claim against the county also failed.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders, including the denial of Mrs. Swinford’s motion to amend her complaint and her motion for reconsideration. View "Swinford v. Santos" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, citizens of the Dominican Republic, requested records from three federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to the revocation of their U.S. visas. The agencies produced some records but withheld others, citing FOIA exemptions, including Exemption 3 and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 222(f). The plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of the searches and the exemptions claimed by the agencies.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed the case. The government filed declarations from FOIA officials explaining the searches and the withheld records. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, concluding that the agencies conducted adequate searches and properly invoked FOIA Exemption 3 to withhold and redact documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the agencies conducted reasonable searches and properly invoked Exemption 3. The court found that INA § 222(f) qualifies as a withholding statute under Exemption 3 and that visa revocation records fall within its scope. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the agencies' declarations violated the best evidence rule and that the searches were inadequate because they did not include alien number searches or routing requests to other DHS components. The court concluded that the agencies' actions were reasonable and in compliance with FOIA requirements. View "Jimenez v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two federally recognized Indian tribes, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, over the excavation and development of a burial site known as Hickory Ground in Wetumpka, Alabama. The Muscogee Nation claims that the site is sacred and historically significant, containing graves and ceremonial grounds. The Poarch Band, which purchased the site in 1980 and later had it held in trust by the United States, excavated the site with Auburn University and announced plans to develop a hotel and casino on it. The Muscogee Nation sued to stop the development and restore the site.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama dismissed the Muscogee Nation's complaint, ruling that the Poarch Band and its officials enjoyed sovereign immunity. The court also found that the Poarch officials were immune under an exception to Ex parte Young for claims that are the functional equivalent of a quiet title action and implicate special sovereignty interests. The district court did not analyze the claims individually but dismissed them collectively, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred by not analyzing the Poarch officials' sovereign immunity on a claim-by-claim basis. The appellate court emphasized that each claim must be considered separately to determine whether it is the functional equivalent of a quiet title action and whether it implicates special sovereignty interests. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to allow the Muscogee Nation to amend its complaint and to analyze the claims individually. The appellate court also rejected the argument that the Supreme Court had abrogated the Coeur d’Alene exception to Ex parte Young, affirming that it remains a narrow but valid exception. View "Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rollin" on Justia Law

A group called Moms for Liberty, along with several individual members, filed a lawsuit against Brevard Public Schools and members of the Brevard County School Board. The plaintiffs claimed that their speech was unconstitutionally restricted at school board meetings. They argued that the Board's policies prohibiting "abusive," "personally directed," and "obscene" speech were unconstitutional. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show an actual or imminent injury. It also held that the Board's policies did not objectively chill the plaintiffs' protected speech. Despite finding no standing, the district court went on to rule that the Board's policies were constitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Eleventh Circuit found that the plaintiffs had standing to seek both retrospective and prospective relief. The court held that the Board's policy on "abusive" speech was unconstitutional because it was viewpoint-based and prohibited offensive speech. The policy on "personally directed" speech was also found to be unreasonable and inconsistently enforced, making it unconstitutional. Lastly, the court ruled that the prohibition on "obscene" speech was unreasonably applied to restrict protected speech, particularly when it involved reading from books available in school libraries. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Eleventh Circuit's opinion. View "Moms for Liberty v. Brevard Public Schools" on Justia Law