Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Lois Ann Brown slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Lynchburg, Virginia, on January 28, 2021, following a snowstorm the previous night. The snowstorm ended by 6:15 AM, and Brown fell at approximately 8:30 AM. Brown did not see any salt or deicing chemicals on the ground or on her clothing after the fall. The store manager, Anthony Ware, confirmed that he did not see any salt or chemicals in the parking lot. Surveillance footage showed the contractor's truck driving around the parking lot but not stopping or applying any deicing measures.Brown initially filed a negligence lawsuit against Wal-Mart in state court, seeking $300,000 in damages. Wal-Mart removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, holding that Brown failed to show that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive notice of the specific patch of ice and that Brown did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Wal-Mart breached its duty of care.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the snowstorm itself provided Wal-Mart with notice of the ice and snow in the parking lot, creating a duty to use reasonable care to remove the hazards. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Wal-Mart breached its duty of care. The evidence, including conflicting testimonies and surveillance footage, suggested that a reasonable jury could find for either party. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP" on Justia Law

Kevin Hsieh, a native and citizen of India, was convicted of inducing a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Following his conviction, an immigration judge (IJ) ordered his removal from the United States, citing his conviction as an aggravated felony of sexual abuse of a minor and a crime of child abuse under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Hsieh appealed the removal order, arguing that the statute of conviction is broader than the generic offenses of sexual abuse of a minor and child abuse.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Hsieh's appeal, agreeing with the IJ's determination that Hsieh's conviction under § 2422(b) categorically matched both the aggravated felony of sexual abuse of a minor and the crime of child abuse as defined in the INA. Hsieh then filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that a conviction under § 2422(b) does indeed categorically constitute a match for both the aggravated felony of sexual abuse of a minor and the crime of child abuse under the INA. The court noted that § 2422(b) targets conduct directed toward minors, involves a mental element focused on sexual gratification, and includes both physical and nonphysical misuse or maltreatment of minors. The court also determined that the statute's mens rea requirement and the harm caused by the offense align with the definitions of sexual abuse of a minor and child abuse.Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Hsieh's petition for review, upholding the BIA's decision that Hsieh's conviction warranted his removal from the United States. View "Hsieh v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In 2018, Marriott announced a data breach affecting the guest reservation database of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, which Marriott had acquired in 2016. The breach exposed personal information of approximately 133.7 million guests, including some payment card information. Plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against Marriott and Accenture, a third-party IT service provider for Starwood and Marriott during the breach. The cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the District of Maryland.The district court initially certified multiple state-specific damages classes against Marriott and issue classes against both Marriott and Accenture. However, the court did not address the effect of a class-action waiver in the Starwood Preferred Guest Program (SPG) contract, which Marriott argued precluded class certification. The Fourth Circuit vacated the class certification, instructing the district court to consider the class-action waiver's impact.On remand, the district court again certified the classes, holding that Marriott had waived its right to enforce the class-action waiver by participating in multidistrict litigation (MDL) and by agreeing to pretrial proceedings in Maryland, contrary to the SPG contract's venue and choice-of-law provisions. The court also suggested that the class-action waiver might be unenforceable under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Marriott did not waive its right to enforce the class-action waiver and that the waiver was valid and enforceable. The court found that the waiver applied to the plaintiffs' claims, including consumer protection and negligence claims, as they were related to the SPG Program. Consequently, the court reversed the certification of all classes against Marriott and the issue classes against Accenture, as the latter were justified only in combination with the Marriott damages classes. View "Maldini v. Marriott International, Incorporated" on Justia Law

In October 2022, NCIS investigators obtained a military warrant to seize but not search Joshua Lee Ray's cell phone. Despite this, they searched the phone and found evidence of child sexual abuse material. Ray moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment as the warrant did not authorize it. The district court granted the motion.The Government appealed, conceding the warrant did not authorize the search, there was no verbal authorization, and the warrant did not incorporate an affidavit requesting authorization. The Government argued the search was justified under the good faith exception.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Government could not rely on the good faith exception because the warrant was not deficient; it simply did not authorize the search. The court emphasized that the NCIS exceeded the scope of the valid warrant, and the good faith exception did not apply to such conduct. The court affirmed the district court's decision to suppress the evidence. View "US v. Ray" on Justia Law

Three defendants, Brayan Alexander Contreras-Avalos, Jairo Arnaldo Jacome, and Luis Arnoldo Flores-Reyes, were charged with various crimes related to their involvement in the MS-13 gang, including racketeering conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering, and drug distribution conspiracy. The charges stemmed from a series of violent acts, including the murders of Anner Duarte-Lopez and Raymond Wood. After a two-week trial, the jury found all three defendants guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced each to life in prison.The defendants appealed their convictions. Jacome and Flores-Reyes argued that two misstatements in the district court’s oral jury instructions, which were corrected in the written instructions, required the reversal of their convictions for murder in aid of racketeering. All three defendants also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against them. The district court had denied their motions for acquittal or a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the two misstatements in the oral jury instructions did not require reversal because the written instructions provided to the jury were correct, and the evidence against the defendants was overwhelming. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings that Jacome and Flores-Reyes committed or aided and abetted the murders and that Contreras-Avalos was involved in the racketeering and drug distribution conspiracies. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the convictions and sentences of all three defendants. View "US v. Contreras-Avalos" on Justia Law

The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) challenged an Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) policy requiring immigration judges to obtain prior approval before speaking publicly on immigration-related issues. NAIJ argued that this policy violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights of its members. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) provided the exclusive remedy for such claims, requiring them to be brought through the administrative procedures established by the CSRA.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case, determining that the CSRA's comprehensive scheme for reviewing personnel actions against federal employees precluded the district court from exercising jurisdiction. The district court held that NAIJ's members must pursue their claims through the CSRA's administrative process, which includes review by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and potential judicial review by the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that while the CSRA generally precludes district court jurisdiction over such claims, the current functionality and independence of the MSPB and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) were in question. The court noted that recent events, including the removal of the Special Counsel and the lack of a quorum in the MSPB, raised concerns about whether the CSRA's adjudicatory scheme was functioning as Congress intended. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to conduct a factual inquiry into whether the CSRA continues to provide a functional and independent review process, as required for the jurisdiction-stripping scheme to apply. View "Natl Assn of Immigration Judges v. Owen" on Justia Law

Lalakshi Kale and Gurusaday Dey, both Indian nationals, have resided in the United States since 2009 and sought to obtain legal permanent residence based on Kale's employment. They applied for adjustment of status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in 2022. Their applications were initially accepted because their priority dates were current. However, due to higher-than-expected demand, the final action date retrogressed, causing their applications to be held in abeyance under USCIS's adjudication hold policy until visa numbers become available.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which precludes judicial review of discretionary decisions by the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security. The district court also noted an alternative basis for dismissal under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C § 701(a)(2).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that USCIS's adjudication hold policy is a discretionary action under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), which grants the Attorney General the discretion to adjust the status of an alien and to prescribe regulations for such adjustments. The court found that this discretionary authority includes the implementation of the adjudication hold policy, thus falling under the jurisdiction-stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the challenge to USCIS's policy and affirmed the dismissal of the case. View "Kale v. Alfonso-Royals" on Justia Law

On January 9, 2021, Xzavier D. Hill, an 18-year-old, was shot and killed by Virginia State Troopers Seth W. Layton and Benjamin I. Bone. Hill's estate, represented by his mother, LaToya K. Benton, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the troopers used excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and committed state law torts. The troopers moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion, finding that the troopers' actions were objectively reasonable and that no clearly established law indicated their conduct was unconstitutional.The district court found that the troopers were entitled to qualified immunity on both the constitutional and clearly established prongs. The court determined that the troopers reasonably believed Hill posed a danger by disobeying commands and reaching towards what they perceived to be a handgun. The court also concluded that there was no precedent clearly establishing that the troopers' actions were unlawful. Consequently, the court dismissed the state law tort claims, as they were dependent on the success of the federal excessive force claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the troopers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that all three Graham factors—severity of the crime, immediate threat to officers, and resisting arrest or evading arrest by flight—favored the troopers. The court also determined that there was no Supreme Court or Fourth Circuit precedent that clearly established the troopers' conduct as unconstitutional. Therefore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Benton v. Layton" on Justia Law

Glen Lawson worked for coal-mining companies for twelve years and has a lengthy smoking history, smoking a pack a day for thirty years before quitting in 2014. He is now totally disabled due to respiratory ailments, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and has used a portable oxygen tank since 2014, required lung surgery in 2017, and been hospitalized with pneumonia several times. In 2017, Lawson applied for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act.A claims examiner approved Lawson's application, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld that determination. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ's decision. Lawson's former employer, Extra Energy, Inc., petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review, arguing that Lawson did not provide sufficient evidence that his respiratory disabilities were attributable at least in part to his coal-mining employment rather than solely to his smoking history.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Extra Energy's petition for review. The court held that the ALJ sufficiently supported his conclusions regarding the cause of Lawson's disabilities. The ALJ credited the opinions of three medical experts who concluded that Lawson's respiratory and pulmonary ailments were caused by both his smoking history and his coal-mine employment, thus diagnosing him with legal pneumoconiosis. The court found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable law, affirming the award of black-lung benefits to Lawson. View "Extra Energy, Incorporated v. DOWCP" on Justia Law

Garten Trucking LC, a company specializing in the transportation of paper products, faced a union organizing campaign by the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers (AWPPW) in mid-2021. After losing a union representation election, AWPPW filed multiple unfair labor practice charges against Garten Trucking, alleging various violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Garten Trucking guilty of several violations, including unlawful interrogation and threats, and ordered a new election. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) affirmed the ALJ's findings and mandated bargaining with AWPPW.While the initial case was pending, AWPPW continued its organizing efforts, distributing a flyer claiming that Garten Trucking was required to bargain with the union and that the union's presence led to employee raises. In response, Garten Trucking's owner, Robert Garten, posted a message on the company's internal board, refuting the union's claims and suggesting that employees would have already received raises if not for the union's actions. The union filed another unfair labor practice charge, and the ALJ ruled that Garten's message violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by implying that union activities negatively impacted wage increases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether Garten's message constituted a coercive threat. The court upheld the NLRB's decision, finding substantial evidence that Garten's statement linking wage increases to union activities was coercive and violated the NLRA. The court emphasized that while employers are entitled to express their opinions on union activities, they cannot make statements that imply threats or promises of benefits based on union support. The court denied Garten Trucking's petition and granted the NLRB's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Garten Trucking LC v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law