Trent Taylor is an inmate at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. For six days in September 2013, Taylor claimed that correctional officers confined him in two different unsanitary cells. In the first, the floor, the ceiling, the window, the walls, and even the water faucet were covered in feces. Taylor did not eat or drink for four days because he feared that he would consume contaminated products.

Temporarily removing a package from mail processing to examine its exterior does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether pursuit of a person who a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor allows the officer to enter a home without a warrant.

On October 6, 2020, the Supreme Court heard telephonic oral arguments for Tanzin v. Tavir, which poses the question of whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed in 1993, allows suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees, here FBI agents.

An NCIS investigations specialist filed suit, alleging that NCIS erroneously classified him as exempt from overtime pay, and for years denied him overtime compensation and premium pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On September 24, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ decision, after a trial, to deny liquidated damages, despite finding that NCIS was liable for incorrectly classifying the position as FLSA-exempt.

Where an agency relies, directly or indirectly, on the results of a psychological assessment in justifying an employee’s removal, the agency must provide the employee with a meaningful opportunity to review and challenge the evidence underlying the assessment, the Federal Circuit recently held.

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to extend Bivens to violations of the Fourth Amendment for excessive force and unreasonable seizure brought against Department of Veterans Affairs police officers.

On August 31, 2020, in a 2-1 decision after a remand from the en banc court, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives (“Judiciary Committee”) had no valid cause of action to enforce its subpoena for executive branch records related to former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn, II, where the Executive Branch blocked McGahn’s testimony and asserted “absolute testimonial immunity.”

A dual-status military technician, whose position was partially civilian and partially military, appealed his termination for failing to maintain membership in the National Guard, a prerequisite to his dual-status appointment under 32 U.S.C. § 709(b), to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB took jurisdiction and heard the case on the merits, ultimately affirming the termination. The employee petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for review. On August 21, 2020, the appeals court vacated the MSPB decision, finding that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the first place.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an FBI notice identifying a suspect as armed and dangerous justified an officer’s demonstration of his weapon and use of handcuffs during Terry stop and frisk.

Three Muslims in Southern California subjected to surveillance by the FBI solely because of their religion brought suit against FBI Agents and the U.S. government for violating their constitutional rights. Among various other claims, they brought a private right of action for violations under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and violations of their Fourth Amendment rights under Bivens. They also sought the expungement of collected information and damages for the alleged unlawful surveillance.

On August 6, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the federal judiciary has been charging unlawfully excessive fees for access to records through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system.

Thousands of Oklahoma convictions of Creek Nation members on reservation land may be dismissed following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma. In that case, the Supreme Court held that only the tribes and federal government may prosecute Native Americans living in most of Eastern Oklahoma for crimes committed there. This holding may be extended to dismiss potentially thousands of state convictions for retrial by either tribal governments or the U.S. Department of Justice.

In 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held the MSPB acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it dismissed an ATF employee’s Individual Right of Action appeal. The Seventh Circuit’s 2018 opinion found that the employee “properly alleged a ‘protected disclosure’ and exhausted his administrative remedies so that the Board had jurisdiction to evaluate the merits of his claim.” The MSPB AJ denied relief, and the employee appealed to the Seventh Circuit again. On July 16, 2020, the appeals court again held that the MSPB acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law. This time, the remand to the MSPB was only on the extent of relief to the employee.

On June 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the removal of illegally appointed employees who had otherwise not committed misconduct or performed poorly still promoted the efficiency of the service.

On June 29, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that restrictions on the President of the United States’ ability to fire a single director of a federal agency violates the separation of powers clause of the United States Constitution.

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States, by a 6-3 vote, held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination.

FEDagent recently reported the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Babb v. Wilkie. In Babb, the Supreme Court reversed a panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and held the prohibition against age discrimination in the federal workplace was broader than that applied in the private sector. We update you now that plaintiff Noris Babb is requesting the full Eleventh Circuit to apply the Supreme Court’s holding to lower the bar to establish EEO reprisal claims in the federal workplace.

In October 2016, Little Rock, AR Police Officer Dennis Hutchins shot and killed Roy Lee Richards, Jr. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently found that Officer Hutchins’s shooting of Richards, who possessed a pellet gun, was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and denied Officer Hutchins qualified immunity.

Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, in a case where officers shot a suspect who temporarily eluded capture and subsequently sued for civil damages, is set to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Fall Term.