(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a lawsuit brought by a family receiving governmental housing assistance seeking to enjoin their landlord from evicting them. The landlord argued that he was permitted to evict a family that received enhanced vouchers from the federal government once their lease expired. Rejecting the landlord's position, the Third Circuit held en banc that enhanced voucher holders may not be evicted absent good cause, even at the end of a lease term. The panel reversed summary judgment for the landlord and remanded.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging fraud in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical drugs to nursing homes. The defendant company, which owns and operates institutional pharmacies, argued for dismissal of the qui tam action on the ground that the allegation was already known to the public, and the district court agreed. Reversing and remanding, the Third Circuit held that the relator's allegation had not previously been publicly disclosed.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that two investors could proceed with their proposed class action lawsuit alleging that an investment services company breached a contract with them by overcharging for commissions. The company moved to dismiss the relevant claims under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). On interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit held that the SLUSA bar did not apply here, affirming the district court's ruling that the investors' claims could move forward.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Rejected challenges to a natural gas pipeline project but remanded on one issue. Local governments and an environmental organization argued that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving a proposed interstate pipeline expansion, but the Third Circuit rejected this argument. However, on a separate issue, the panel remanded to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection with instructions to reconsider the petitioners' request for an adjudicatory hearing.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a disabled tenant's lawsuit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act. The tenant, who needs ready access to her rolling walker, brought suit when the building managers refused to allow her to leave it in the building's lobby. Unpersuaded by her arguments, the Third Circuit concluded she did not plausibly plead that her preferred accommodation of leaving the walker in the lobby was necessary, given that she was offered four other ways to store and access her walker.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a pastor could not sue his church for breach of an employment contract. The church contended that adjudication of the pastor's contract claim would impermissibly entangle the court in religious doctrine in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Agreeing, the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the church.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a defendant who alleged violation of his Confrontation Clause rights. The defendant, who was convicted of third-degree murder, challenged the use of prior statements of a witness who refused to answer any substantive questions on cross-examination. While agreeing that the defendant's rights were violated, the Third Circuit concluded that his Confrontation Clause claim was procedurally defaulted and there was no cause to excuse the default here.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied an alien's petition for review of a decision ordering him removed from the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals had ruled that the citizen of Cameroon, who entered the U.S. on a student visa in 1989, was ineligible for waiver of removal because his felony conviction of making false statements about a sham marriage constituted a crime involving moral turpitude. On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed that the man was not eligible for a fraud waiver, and thus denied his petition for review.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a federal prisoner could proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with a lawsuit alleging that prison employees violated his constitutional rights. The district court had denied the prisoner's IFP request, applying the so-called three strikes rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Reversing, the Third Circuit held that the prisoner had not accrued three strikes. The panel used its own precedent to evaluate whether his prior lawsuits were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, rather than that of the circuit from which the potential strikes emanated.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed a brother's and sister's convictions and life sentences for conspiracy to commit interstate stalking and cyberstalking resulting in death. The two siblings were indicted after their father shot and killed the brother's ex-wife and himself. On appeal, the siblings both disputed the constitutionality of the statutes under which they were convicted and also brought numerous other challenges to their convictions and sentences. However, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in all respects, in a case that the appellate panel said involved numerous issues of first impression.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a real estate title insurer had a duty to defend the insured party (here the successor to a lender) against certain claims of the borrower/mortgagor. The title insurer disputed that it had a duty to defend. Applying Pennsylvania law, the Third Circuit held that a duty to defend existed under the facts, but only as to certain of the borrower's claims.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that job applicants had legal standing to pursue claims that a prospective employer violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to send them copies of their background checks. The employer argued that the job applicants lacked standing because they alleged a bare procedural violation of the statute but no concrete injury in fact. Disagreeing, the Third Circuit reversed the district court in relevant part and remanded.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed a conviction on drug-trafficking charges. Raising a venue challenge, the defendant argued that he could not reasonably have foreseen that conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy would have occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Rejecting his argument, the Third Circuit declined to adopt a reasonable foreseeability test for venue.

(United States Third Circuit) - Remanded with instructions to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus. The defendant, who was convicted of first-degree murder, contended that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by advising him incorrectly that he could not be convicted of murder, which led the defendant to reject a plea deal. Agreeing that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, the Third Circuit reversed the denial of habeas relief and remanded.

(United States Third Circuit) - Vacated a ruling allocating the costs of cleaning up a contaminated manufacturing site. A successor company brought a contribution action against its predecessor company seeking to recover the costs it had incurred when government regulators forced it to remediate the site. The district court arrived at a percentage method of splitting the costs between the two companies, but on appeal the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a motorist who was kicked in the face during his arrest, breaking his eye socket, could pursue conspiracy claims against the four police officers at the scene, all of whom denied kicking him or seeing who did. The motorist did not know which of the officers had kicked him. The Third Circuit held that this doomed his excessive-force claim. However, the panel allowed him to continue litigating his claim of an unconstitutional after-the-fact conspiracy to cover up misconduct, reversing summary judgment in relevant part.  

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a fee petition in its entirety when the amount requested was outrageously excessive. The Third Circuit formally endorsed the view that where a fee-shifting statute provides a court discretion to award attorney fees, such discretion includes the ability to deny a fee request altogether when, under the circumstances, the amount requested is outrageously excessive. The panel thus affirmed the denial of a fee award to a prevailing plaintiff in an insurance bad faith case.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a federal prison inmate's lawsuit alleging that prison officials unconstitutionally retaliated against him by forcing him to cell with an inmate who had threatened to kill him. The case required the Third Circuit to resolve several matters of first impression in the circuit concerning the Prison Litigation Reform Act's procedural requirements and other matters. The panel ultimately vacated dismissal of the inmate's suit in part and remanded.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by investors of a bankrupt company who claimed they were entitled to dividend payments. The investors, who purchased their shares with notice of the bankruptcy, claimed that the company and several of its officers were liable for failing to pay them a dividend they were owed. Rejecting their arguments, the Third Circuit held that the investors were bound by the reorganization plan, including its releases of liability.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the Internal Revenue Service could be liable for emotional-distress damages for willfully violating an automatic stay by sending collection notices to a couple who had filed for bankruptcy. The government argued that it was protected from liability by sovereign immunity. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code unambiguously waived sovereign immunity. The panel therefore reversed and remanded with instructions to consider the government's challenge to the merits of the debtors' claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code did not permit the co-founders of several real-estate management companies to discharge a debt arising from a state-court judgment for fraud and misrepresentation. The central issue in this case was whether the individuals continued to engage in business after consummation of the Chapter 11 plan. Concluding that they did not, the Ninth Circuit held that they could not discharge the debt.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the time period in which a creditor could execute on an Order for Appearance and Examination (ORAP) lien was tolled during the automatic stay. Affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the receiver for a failed bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, did not have to honor a benefits agreement with a bank executive, because the benefit he sought was a golden-parachute payment prohibited by federal law. Affirmed summary judgment for the FDIC.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, held that when the nature of a debt is such that its discharge will directly and adversely impact the finances of the debtor's spouse or former spouse, it is nondischargeable in bankruptcy, even if it is not directly payable to the spouse. Affirmed the district court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a Chapter 7 debtor was not allowed to amend a bankruptcy schedule to reflect a post-petition increase in the value of property that was the subject of a homestead exemption under Washington law. Affirmed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a bankruptcy debtor who sought damages for willful violation of the automatic stay was entitled to attorney fees on appeal. When an appeal is necessary to secure such damages, appellate attorney fees and costs should also be granted to a successful debtor, regardless of which party brings the appeal. Reversed the district court's order.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in a dispute between two creditors of an agricultural produce company that filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. One of the creditors was another produce company that did business with the debtor. Because the goods were perishable agricultural commodities, the case involved the federal Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the sole owner of an electrical contracting company could discharge a debt in bankruptcy. The National Labor Relations Board had ordered him to provide backpay to employees he had terminated after their attempt to unionize the company. Affirmed that the debt was dischargeable in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that bankruptcy trustees are entitled to qualified immunity for personal harms caused by actions that, while not pursuant to a court order, fall within the scope of their official duties. Affirmed the dismissal of an adversary proceeding against a bankruptcy trustee.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case where a creditor sought to collect a judgment, held that California's Uniform Voidable Transactions Act may apply to a fraudulent agreement between spouses to prevent collection of the debt. The debtor's premarital agreement here said that each spouse's earnings and other property acquired during marriage would not become community property.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a contract to provide financial services was voidable because the company had failed to register as an investment adviser, as it was required to do under the Investment Advisers Act. Affirmed a ruling on this question in the company's bankruptcy proceeding.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Rejected a mootness argument in a dispute between an insolvent borrower and the holder of a mortgage note. Overruled In re River West Plaza-Chicago LLC, 664 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2011), holding that 11 U.S.C. section 363(m) does not make any dispute moot or prevent a bankruptcy court from deciding what shall be done with the proceeds of a sale or lease.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a lien contest among creditors of a bankrupt commercial farm, held that a bank's lien outranked the agricultural liens of nurseries that sold the farm trees and shrubs. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a bankruptcy trustee could conduct a public auction of certain real estate owned by a Chapter 7 debtor, even though one of the tracts of land was already under contract. Affirmed the decisions below.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a real estate business's Chapter 11 reorganization plan. Held that the plan was lawfully proposed even though a lessee illegally grew marijuana. Rejected a challenge brought by the United States Trustee.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that judicial estoppel did not bar a Sarbanes-Oxley Act whistleblower retaliation claim. The issue centered on whether the plaintiff employee had attempted to conceal his whistleblower lawsuit from the court in his bankruptcy proceeding. Vacated a dismissal in relevant part.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. Plaintiff received over-payment of Social Security disability payments and the SSA sought to recoup the over-payment. Plaintiff claimed that the SSA collected the over-payment before considering plaintiff's waiver request. Plaintiff also filed for bankruptcy and lodged an adversarial proceeding against the SSA which the bankruptcy court dismissed. The issue for the Fifth circuit was whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims. The Fifth circuit ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction and remanded to the bankruptcy court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the circumstances in which a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt that a bankruptcy discharge order has immunized from collection. Held that there should be "no fair ground of doubt" that the order barred the creditor's conduct. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The Illinois Child Care Assistance Program could not collect overpayments made to debtors under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program who filed for bankruptcy.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A bankruptcy judge did not commit clear error in finding that a trustee’s distributions to a third party while the company was insolvent were gratuitous, and there was no reason to overturn the imposition of discovery sanctions against the trustee.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed, vacated, and remanded. Holding that a creditor can establish that its expenses are attributable to the actions of the bankruptcy estate through evidence of either a direct request from the debtor-in-possession or other inducement via the knowing and voluntary post-petition acceptance of desired goods or services.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A bankruptcy court's denial of a request to discharge a 60 year-old disabled former student's debt was affirmed. She failed to establish a showing of undue hardship. She had shown an inability to maintain a minimal standard of living because expenses exceeded income, but couldn't establish that her current condition would persist for a significant portion of the loan repayment period.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. A debtor's property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy estate in cases involving contingent future interests.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The bankruptcy court's rejection of a Texas Port Authority's claims of sovereign immunity and fraud in their gambit to invalidate a bankruptcy sale that extinguished an easement they held was affirmed because there was no Eleventh Amendment violation or basis to claim fraud.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part. A company that was unaware of a debt discharge in bankruptcy was not liable for continuing to attempt to collect on its debt, but one company who was notified and proceeded in state court could be held liable for actions taken by counsel on its behalf.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Subject matter jurisdiction is determined when the federal court's jurisdiction is first invoked, so although subsequent changes eliminated the basis for jurisdiction the propriety at the time of filing supported the continuation of the case.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. The panel held that the FDIC’s appeal was timely filed within 60 days of entry of the district court’s judgment because, even though acting solely as a receiver, the FDIC was a United States agency under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B)(ii).

With concerns about COVID-19 in mind, the U.S. Forest Service is thinking about swapping public transportation for limited vehicle entry.