Circuit Briefs: Weekly, Non-Exhaustive Digest of Federal Courts of Appeal Rulings

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature crafted by a team at the Institute for Justice.

Fresh case alert! IJ clients Charles and Eli Copley own 50 acres of woodland in Roxbury, Connecticut, where they’ve long welcomed hikers for a modest hourly fee—an entirely harmless pastime that isn’t visible to neighbors. Yet the town contends this activity could breach the zoning ordinance—though not any portion of the code that’s actually written down—and the Copleys have been unable to host hikers for a full year. Absurd! Click here to learn more.

New on the Short Circuit podcast: Our #12Months12Circuits series reaches the Eighth Circuit. It involves irreparable harm and contractor speech.

Today’s practical news item: Verify your prospective interns’ resumes and references diligently! A Project Veritas undercover journalist created a fictitious identity to infiltrate a Democratic political consulting firm, and parts of her recorded material were used in a cringe-worthy run of YouTube videos that caused several major clients to walk away. The firm sued the reporters and won a substantial verdict. The D.C. Circuit (in a partial dissent) held that although her deceit could be tortious, most of the videos were fully protected by the First Amendment, so the verdict must be overturned because damages were not tied to the fraudulently obtained material.
New Hampshire parents (and a grandparent) are barred from school property after wearing pink wristbands at a high school soccer game to protest a transgender player on the visiting team. The First Circuit suggests this is a First Amendment issue.
Three decades ago Congress reorganized the immigration removal process, allowing some—but not all—noncitizens to post bond while awaiting their hearing. A later regulation clarified that bond was available only to those already inside the U.S., not to border arrivals. The federal government reversed course last summer; now no one is eligible for bond. Is that fine? The Fifth and Eighth Circuits say yes. The First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and now the Third Circuits say no.
If you’ve been sued and worry you waived the right to arbitrate against potential class members, the Third Circuit offers reassurance: you’ll be OK even if you wait 55 months. And the Third Circuit adds that if you took some depositions first, arbitration can still proceed with vigor.
During an oversight tour of a federal immigration facility, a New Jersey congresswoman clashed with federal officials. She was later charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer. She claims immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause and alleges vindictive prosecution. The Third Circuit: she loses on two counts and we remand on the third. Dissent: It certainly looks like she’s being treated less favorably than Jan. 6 defendants.
Federal political candidates have the right to purchase broadcast ad time at the “lowest unit cost.” The FCC issues a public notice that political parties and joint fundraising committees enjoy the same right. Democratic candidates sue. The Fourth Circuit: The public notice is invalidated. Dissent: “I would not neuter a federal agency and seize imaginary jurisdiction merely to disadvantage the role of political parties in our democratic discourse and to dampen the momentum of pre-election speech.”
A North Carolina woman, born in Mexico but raised in the United States since childhood, was convicted in state court in 2006 on marijuana charges. The federal government later sought to deport her. Meanwhile, the state court vacated her conviction (the underlying sentence having been served). The government maintains that a vacated sentence can still trigger deportation. The Fourth Circuit: Under Chevron, you’d be right, but without deference, we believe your statute-reading is flawed.
A woman peacefully protests a fatal police shooting by grilling hot dogs and burgers outside the Lafayette, Louisiana mayor’s residence. She’s arrested for obstructing the roadway (which she did not), and then strip-searched in jail. Is this unlawful retaliation against speech? Is the arrest without probable cause unconstitutional? The Fifth Circuit: Qualified immunity applies. Dissent: Qualified immunity is a fiction—incorrect in general, and certainly not applicable here.
The Fifth Circuit: “As we understand the outer reaches of Internet operation, it comprises websites and hyperlinks woven into daily life. Yet this appeal hinges on esoterica. We must grasp the inner machinery of this technology to see how a separate framework—copyright law—can overlay it.”
A student visiting Michigan for a vocational program dozes off while a judge is giving career counsel. The judge locks the student up for hours and then subjects her to a sham trial. She sues. The judge: the “trial” might have been staged, but I am a real judge with real judicial immunity. The Sixth Circuit: You get credit for nerve, but not for immunity.
With support from friends, family, and caregivers, a quadriplegic woman has effectively served as a foster-motherly guardian to several children, including relatives and the occasional foster placement. The Sixth Circuit: Michigan’s decision to deny her foster-parent status did not amount to disability discrimination. The state even suggested she could reapply later, which argues against any notion of animus.
When a ninth-grader is suspended for fighting, a Macomb County school police officer tells him, falsely, that a new three-strikes rule exists and he’s one strike away from expulsion and prison. The student flees, later takes his own life. The Sixth Circuit calls this an unspeakable tragedy. And yet…
Is possessing virtual, AI-generated child sexual abuse material inside one’s home protected by the First Amendment? The Seventh Circuit answers yes, under binding precedent. A two-judge concurrence suggests that perhaps the Supreme Court should revisit its early-2000s rulings on this issue.
In Fargo, North Dakota, the Eighth Circuit holds that the city’s definition of “adult bookstore” isn’t unconstitutionally vague, yet it does not reach a category of sex-oriented shops whose offerings are, shall we say, less literary in nature.
A sex offender in Arkansas serves most of a 30-year sentence, earns parole, and seeks to reside on property owned by a family trust. His parole officer fabricates a non-existent daycare nearby, effectively barring him from living there—a lie that officials who were aware of the deception did not correct. A due-process claim? The Eighth Circuit says no constitutional right to early release.
Can California require businesses to install 24/7 video cameras with audio and allow warrantless inspections, even if the business operates out of the owner’s home? The Ninth Circuit says yes—if guns are involved. Dissent: Didn’t we previously extend protections of several amendments to cover this?
In 1967, Congress investigated the communications failures that contributed to the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, which killed 34 sailors. The resulting report—now in NSA custody—has never been publicly released. The Ninth Circuit: And never shall be. The Freedom of Information Act obligates disclosure of certain agency records, but the report is a congressional record, notwithstanding the NSA possessing a “purloined” copy.
In a class-action settlement involving roughly 247 million Americans, Google pays $62 million. None of this goes to class members; instead, it funds organizations the parties claim perform good works. Some class members object that money should go to those actually in the class. The Ninth Circuit: It would be hard to distribute the money differently, so this is close enough. Dissent: Pardon my Norman French.
Your editor is pleased to report that a San Francisco man convicted after firing a gun into the air outside a bar was captured by Officer Frisk. The Ninth Circuit (in a dissent) notes that the district court should revisit the man’s 45-month sentence, this time without implying that his choice to exercise his constitutional right to trial signals any lack of remorse.
An expansive executive order imposes post hoc conditions on federal grants from HUD and DOT. Local governments challenge the terms and a district court blocks them. The Ninth Circuit: Largely sustains. Dissent: “Ultimately, this is another instance of courts wrestling with who decides and choosing the wrong path.”
Eleventh Circuit: “What began as a disgruntled ex-contractor tampering with the jumbotrons during several NFL games escalated into a broader case involving child pornography possession and production, unlawful firearm possession, sex-offender registrations, and, of course, computer hacking.”
You could read the entire Eleventh Circuit opinion about Miami-Dade officials allegedly using police to settle personal and political scores and then dismissing the police chief, who, as a private citizen, objected. Or you could search for “Elvis,” “tight pants,” and “The Godfather”—not amusing pop culture nods but actual elements of the case. The court denies both qualified and legislative immunities to the commissioners.
And in en banc news, the Eleventh Circuit plans to revisit its ruling that tucked the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary-function exception into the Suits in Admiralty Act—a different statute that carries no such exception. A favorable turn for two boaters who crashed into an unmarked duck blind and now want to sue the government under the SAA.

Victory! For years, Humboldt County, California officials misused their code-enforcement authority, slapping property owners with exorbitant, uncollectible cannabis-related fines—without regard to whether anyone actually grew cannabis. When residents challenged these fines, hearings were repeatedly postponed as the fines mounted at about $30,000 per day. IJ client Blu Graham requested a hearing to demonstrate his greenhouse contained vegetables, not cannabis, and was kept waiting for over four and a half years (only receiving a hearing as we prepared to sue). In 2024, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged these concerns. After we began taking depositions of officials, the county chose to settle, agreeing to compensate our clients and to respect the Constitution going forward. Click here to learn more.