Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Several businesses involved in the cultivation, distribution, and sale of hemp products in Wyoming and elsewhere challenged a Wyoming statute, Senate Enrolled Act 24 (SEA 24), which significantly altered the state’s regulation of hemp. SEA 24 narrowed the definition of hemp to exclude synthetic substances and expanded the definition of THC to include both delta-9 and delta-8 THC, requiring that the combined concentration not exceed 0.3%. The law also added both naturally occurring and synthetic delta-8 THC to Wyoming’s Schedule I controlled substances, making it unlawful to manufacture, deliver, or possess hemp products exceeding the new THC limits or containing synthetic substances, even if such products are legal under federal law.After SEA 24 was enacted, the plaintiffs filed a preenforcement action in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They argued that SEA 24 was preempted by the federal 2018 Farm Bill, violated the Dormant Commerce Clause, constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking, and was void for vagueness. The plaintiffs also sought a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect. The district court denied the motion for preliminary relief and subsequently dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that most defendants were protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the remaining claims lacked legal merit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked a substantial federal right to support their preemption claim, failed to demonstrate a Dormant Commerce Clause violation, did not establish a regulatory taking of their commercial personal property, and did not show that SEA 24 was unconstitutionally vague. The court also dismissed the appeal of the denial of preliminary relief as moot due to the dismissal of the complaint. View "Green Room v. State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Several healthcare employees in Colorado, including those at the University of Colorado Hospital Authority and South Denver Cardiology Associates, were terminated after refusing to comply with their employers’ COVID-19 vaccination mandates. These mandates, implemented in 2021, required employees to either be vaccinated or obtain a medical or religious exemption. The plaintiffs declined vaccination and did not seek exemptions, resulting in their dismissal.Following their terminations, the plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, asserting nearly identical claims. They alleged violations of statutory, constitutional, and contractual rights, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state-law breach of contract and tort claims, and an implied private right of action under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds such as sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim. The district courts dismissed all claims, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled any viable legal theory. The courts also denied the plaintiffs’ requests to amend their complaints after judgment was entered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that none of the statutes cited by the plaintiffs—including the Emergency Use Authorization statute, the PREP Act, and 10 U.S.C. § 980—unambiguously conferred individual rights enforceable under § 1983. The court also found that the constitutional claims, including those based on due process and equal protection, were not adequately pled and that the breach of contract claim was waived for lack of argument. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ judgments, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted and that the lower courts did not abuse their discretion in denying leave to amend. View "Timken v. South Denver Cardiology Associates" on Justia Law

In 1991, the predecessor to the plaintiffs conveyed land to the United States in a land exchange but retained certain water rights that could only be accessed through the conveyed property, now managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The conveyance documents did not mention these water rights or provide any right of access. Over the years, the plaintiffs and their predecessors sought permits from the Forest Service to access and develop the water rights, but the agency repeatedly expressed concerns about environmental impacts and indicated it had the authority to deny access. In 2010, the Forest Service formally opposed the plaintiffs’ efforts to maintain the water rights in state court, asserting it would not grant the necessary land use authorization.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Quiet Title Act (QTA) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA). The court found the QTA claim time-barred by the statute’s twelve-year limitations period, reasoning that the plaintiffs or their predecessors were on notice of the government’s adverse claim well before the suit was filed in 2022. The court also dismissed the DJA claim, holding it was essentially a quiet title claim subject to the same limitations period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the QTA claim was untimely because, by 2006 at the latest, the Forest Service had asserted exclusive control sufficient to put the plaintiffs on notice of its adverse claim, causing the limitations period to expire before the suit was filed. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over two of the plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory relief and that the third, alleging a taking, was not ripe because the plaintiffs had not first sought compensation under the Tucker Act. View "Purgatory Recreation I v. United States" on Justia Law

A former employee of an Oklahoma-based aviation training company alleged that his one-year employment contract was not renewed because he is a disabled veteran and because he complained to human resources about his supervisor’s disparaging comments regarding his disability. The employee, a Marine veteran with a high VA disability rating, worked as a Loadmaster Instructor in Kuwait. During his tenure, he disclosed his disability status for affirmative action purposes and later informed his supervisor and a co-worker when his rating increased. After this disclosure, his supervisor made inappropriate remarks about the disability system and the employee’s status, which led to a complaint and a subsequent reprimand of the supervisor. The employee’s FAA flight certificate expired shortly before his contract ended, and he received a negative performance appraisal from his immediate supervisor. The company’s higher management, who were responsible for contract renewal decisions, cited subpar job performance and the lapse of the flight certificate as reasons for not renewing the contract.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims. The court found that the employee failed to present sufficient evidence that the stated reasons for non-renewal were pretextual under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or that the decision was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The court also held that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) does not protect against discrimination based solely on disability status, but rather on military service itself.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the employee did not create a triable issue of fact under the “cat’s paw” theory linking a supervisor’s alleged bias to the ultimate decisionmakers. The court also confirmed that USERRA does not extend to claims of discrimination based solely on disability status. View "Sellman v. Aviation Training Consulting" on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute between two brothers, Matthew and Shane, involving a $445,000 debt that Matthew owed to Shane. After learning that the government intended to recover over $1 million from him due to unrelated criminal charges, Matthew convinced Shane to allow him to create a company in Shane’s name to shield assets. Later, Matthew orchestrated a real estate transaction through this company, Cap Fund 783, LLC, resulting in a $767,000 assignment fee. Matthew attempted to divert these proceeds to himself by lying to the escrow agent and falsifying business records online to make it appear he controlled Cap Fund, thereby concealing the asset from Shane.The United States District Court for the District of Utah presided over Matthew’s trial. A jury convicted him on two counts of wire fraud, based on his phone call to the escrow agent and his online alteration of Cap Fund’s records. The district court also found him guilty, after a bench trial, of criminal contempt and possession of ammunition by a felon. Matthew was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution. He appealed, arguing that his actions did not deprive Shane or the escrow agent of property, that the district court erred by not admitting a state-court judgment, and that the government failed to prove the interstate element for one wire fraud count.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction for wire fraud related to the phone call, holding that a creditor’s right to collect a debt is a property interest under the wire fraud statute, and that the escrow agent also had a property interest in the funds. The court reversed the conviction on the count involving the online alteration, finding insufficient evidence that the communication crossed state lines. The court affirmed the convictions for criminal contempt and felon-in-possession, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law

Malachi Moon Seals, at age eighteen, posted graphic and violent threats against federal officials and their families on official websites, causing some recipients to request security protection. A grand jury indicted him on twelve counts: six for threatening or retaliating against federal officials under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1), and six for transmitting threats via interstate communications under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Seals pleaded guilty to all charges. The probation office calculated an advisory sentencing range of 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment, which made him ineligible for straight probation under the guidelines. Nevertheless, both parties advocated for probation, and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, with hesitation, sentenced Seals to five years’ probation with special conditions.Shortly after beginning probation, Seals violated its terms by posting new threats online. The probation office petitioned for his arrest, and Seals admitted to the violations. The district court revoked his probation and proceeded to resentence him. At the resentencing hearing, the probation office recommended a sentence at the low end of the original guideline range, and the government supported this recommendation. Defense counsel referenced the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Moore, but suggested its holding might be reversed. The district court did not apply the Moore framework and instead sentenced Seals to 36 months’ imprisonment under the original guideline range.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred by not applying the two-step resentencing procedure required by Moore I. The court held that, although the district court plainly erred by not following Moore I’s framework, Seals failed to show that the court was required to impose a 0-month sentence at the first step or that this error was plain. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the post-revocation sentence. View "United States v. Seals" on Justia Law

Law enforcement discovered that an individual had stored child pornography in a Dropbox account, including videos of him sexually abusing two minor girls and other illicit material. The investigation revealed that the Dropbox account was used for personal file storage, with no evidence of sharing or distribution. The defendant was charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a child and two counts of possession of child pornography, each count corresponding to a different victim. He pleaded guilty to all charges before trial, and the United States Probation Office prepared a pre-sentence report recommending a lengthy prison term.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma adopted the pre-sentence report and sentenced the defendant to concurrent prison terms totaling 292 months, followed by a lifetime of supervised release. Among the special conditions imposed was a restriction prohibiting the defendant from using the Internet or any online computer services without prior written approval from his probation officer. The court did not provide a specific explanation or analysis for imposing this Internet use condition. The defendant did not object to this condition at sentencing but appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to analyze whether the condition satisfied the statutory requirements under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error. The court held that the district court plainly erred by imposing the Internet use condition without providing any explanation or analysis as required by law. The Tenth Circuit found that this error was clear under established precedent, affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Bycroft" on Justia Law

A woman from Honduras and her two minor sons fled their home country after the murder of her partner, Arturo Robles, by a man named Jonis, who was associated with a gang. Following the murder, Jonis threatened the woman and her children, specifically targeting those related to Arturo. The woman reported these threats to the police, but they failed to act, which she attributed to their ties with gangs. Fearing for their safety, she and her children entered the United States unlawfully in 2014 and sought asylum, arguing that their persecution was due to their membership in Arturo’s nuclear family.After removal proceedings began, an Immigration Judge (IJ) granted asylum in 2014, finding the woman and her brother credible and concluding that her family relationship was a central reason for the threats. The government appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further factfinding. In 2019, after additional hearings and evidence, the IJ again granted asylum, finding that the threats were motivated by the family relationship, that the woman could not safely relocate within Honduras, and that the government was unable or unwilling to protect her. The government appealed again, and in 2023, a three-judge BIA panel vacated the IJ’s decision, holding that the IJ’s factual findings were clearly erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s 2023 order. The court held that the BIA misapplied the clear-error standard required by regulation when reviewing the IJ’s factual findings. The Tenth Circuit found that the IJ’s findings on nexus, internal relocation, and government protection were permissible and not clearly erroneous. The court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded with instructions to reinstate the IJ’s grant of asylum. View "Ramos v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Police officers investigating a recent carjacking and kidnapping at an Oklahoma City motel received information from the motel manager that a man matching the suspect’s description was staying in a particular room. Upon arrival, one officer looked through a one-inch gap in the window curtains from an open-air walkway outside the room and saw the defendant, Cameron Watkins, sitting on a bed next to a handgun with an extended magazine. This observation led to Watkins’s arrest and the subsequent discovery of a firearm and ammunition in the room. Watkins was later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and, in a superseding indictment, with being a felon in possession of ammunition found at a separate crime scene.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Watkins’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the officer’s observation was made from a public area—the motel’s exterior walkway—which was accessible to other guests and staff, and not part of the room’s curtilage. The court concluded there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the officer did not intrude upon a protected area or the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Watkins pleaded guilty to the firearm charge, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling, and was convicted by a jury on the ammunition charge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed both convictions. The court held that the officer’s visual observation through the window gap, made from a public walkway using only his unaided senses, did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The walkway was not curtilage, and the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against such observation. The court therefore upheld the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Two elementary school students with intellectual disabilities, through their legal guardians, and a disability advocacy organization challenged the educational placement practices of a public school district. The plaintiffs alleged that the district automatically assigned students with intellectual disabilities to self-contained special education classes in a limited number of designated schools, based solely on IQ-based categories, without conducting individualized assessments to determine whether a general education classroom with supplementary services might be more appropriate for each student. The plaintiffs claimed this practice violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA).After the students’ parents pursued administrative due process hearings under the IDEA, hearing officers dismissed their ADA claims for lack of jurisdiction and, in one case, denied a hearing on the IDEA claim due to lack of parental consent for services. The other student’s hearing officer found that the district had made an appropriate individualized placement. The plaintiffs, joined by the advocacy organization, then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and similarly situated students. The district court dismissed all claims, construing the complaint as seeking only placement in neighborhood schools—a form of relief previously held unavailable under Tenth Circuit precedent—and dismissed the RA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. The court held that the plaintiffs’ allegations that the district failed to make individualized educational placement determinations stated plausible claims under the IDEA, ADA, and Section 504. The court also found that exhaustion of administrative remedies for the RA claim would have been futile. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Jacobs v. Salt Lake City School District" on Justia Law