Law & Courts

SAN FRANCISCO — A unanimous Ninth Circuit panel ruled Wednesday in United States v. California (No. 26-926) that California's No Vigilantes Act cannot be enforced against federal officers. Section 10 of the act required non-uniformed officers to visibly display identification during arrests and detentions. Judge Mark Bennett wrote that a state law regulating federal governmental conduct directly, without congressional authorization, is void whatever the degree of burden. Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Daniel Collins joined. The panel reversed Senior U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder's refusal to block the provision and ordered her to enter a preliminary injunction. It had frozen the law in April. The ruling does not address California's separate mask ban, which Snyder had already blocked as to federal officers. The California attorney general's office said it was disappointed and is reviewing the opinion.

PHILADELPHIA — The full Third Circuit decided two Second Amendment challenges to the federal felon-in-possession law, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), on Tuesday. In United States v. Bost (No. 24-1719), Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the majority that people whose convictions show a risk of physical violence from misusing guns may be disarmed. That upheld the ban against a man convicted in a 2002 carjacking case. In Williams v. Attorney General (No. 24-1091), Judge Paul Matey wrote that history supports disarming dangerous people but not irresponsible ones. The court ruled the ban unconstitutional as applied to Edward Williams, whose record was DUI convictions from the early 2000s. Judges Shwartz, Restrepo and Krause dissented in Williams. Reason notes the Third Circuit is one of three circuits that allow such as-applied challenges, while six others have blocked them. That split could draw Supreme Court review.

On July 14, the Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (No. 25-2398) that the private right of action in 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5) covers phone calls but not text messages. District courts, including the first in the Fourth Circuit, have since followed it. Law-firm commentary notes the ruling leaves Section 227(b) claims and state telemarketing statutes untouched. A federal court in the Southern District of Texas, in Taylor v. OffersPDQ on Oct. 1, granted default judgment on a text-message claim under 227(b) while refusing relief under 227(c). Troutman Amin's TCPAWorld blog also reports an Oct. 5 Middle District of Florida ruling that there is no private right of action for national do-not-call claims. California federal courts are reported to remain the main holdouts. These are district-level rulings, and no other circuit has yet addressed the text-message question.