Recently, the Fifth Circuit held that IP information from an internet provider connected to cell phone use falls within the third-party doctrine post-Carpenter, and that a search warrant of the residence connected with the IP information was supported by probable cause.

Whether state and federal prosecution for the same criminal act violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against double jeopardy, a matter that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Thomas have previously called for “fresh examination,” is set to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court this term.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit extended a Bivens cause of action to a cross-border shooting from the United States into Mexico. The Ninth Circuit also found that the U.S. Border Patrol Agent lacked qualified immunity.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether a finding of probable cause defeats a §1983 claim alleging retaliatory arrest where two troopers arrested a man for disorderly conduct after he protested their conduct.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision dismissing a tort claim filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act by an airline traveler who was arrested after an alleged altercation with Transportation Security Officers (“TSOs”). The appeals court held that the United States did not, through the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), waive sovereign immunity from tort claims made against TSOs, who were not “investigative or law enforcement officers.”

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Carpenter v. U.S., a case that FEDagent previously reported on. In a majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the third-party doctrine does not apply to cell-site location information, and the acquisition of historical cell-site location information is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, for which the government would generally have to obtain a warrant.

On June 25, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Whistleblower Protection Coordination Act (“WPCA”), which permanently reauthorized a “Whistleblower Protection Coordinator” at each federal agency’s respective Office of Inspector General.

In two companion cases before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States Postal Service employees challenged MSPB dismissals, for lack of jurisdiction, of their removal appeals.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled on the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception to the warrant requirement and its intersection with the protection afforded to a home’s curtilage.

On October 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed by the Department of Defense, and vacated the court’s panel opinion in Federal Education Association-Stateside Region v. Department of Defense. 841 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Robert Alexander lived in a narrow house on Staten Island. One night, Alexander stood with a woman in front yard holding a bottle of vodka.

After hearing argument en banc late last year to “clarify the law,” the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on April 9, 2018, holding that prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify wage differential under the Equal Pay Act.

In 2009, the Department of Labor hired Stewart Liff and his consulting firm to provide three management assessment reports.

In June 2014, Vanessa Enoch and Avery Corbin attended a pretrial hearing at the Hamilton County Courthouse.

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that most of Texas’s immigration enforcement legislation, Senate Bill 4, can remain in effect after hearing constitutional challenges from various Texas cities, counties, and officials.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ holdings with regard to the test of whether an agency has carried its burden to prove whether the agency would have taken the same personnel action against an employee irrespective of the employee’s protected disclosures, and with regard to whether an employee may be disciplined for the manner in which he or she communicates a protected disclosure.

For the second time in less than three years, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether requiring public sector employees who are non-paid members of the bargaining unit to pay an “agency fee” to subsidize union activities is unconstitutional.

After years in waiting, the Supreme Court ruled on District of Columbia v. Wesby, and found that DC police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment after arresting 21 individuals at a party for unlawful entry. In doing so, the Court clarified that probable cause determinations are made from a reasonable officer’s consideration of the surrounding circumstances.

A Special Agent at the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms filed an Individual Right of Action appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that his supervisors retaliated against him after he disclosed his suspicion that another agent had improperly shot at a fleeing suspect, provided an inaccurate report of the shooting incident, and had committed perjury during the subsequent criminal trial.

A Program Analyst at the Department of Veterans Affairs was indicted by a Federal grand jury on 50 counts of making false statements related to health care matters.