Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The McCaskill–Bond Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 42112, provides that "combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier" requires the combined business to merge seniority lists of employees. Republic acquired Midwest. Seniority lists for mechanics, baggage handlers, and administrative personnel have been integrated, but Republic furloughed flight attendants, requiring them to apply for "new" jobs; if they are rehired, the Teamsters Union, which represents flight attendants at Republic's older carriers, places them at the bottom of its seniority roster. The Union maintained its position, even after the National Mediation Board concluded that the flight attendants who worked for Midwest became part of a single bargaining unit at an integrated air transportation business. The district court held that Republic's abandonment of Midwest's federal air transportation certificate, and the return of its planes, meant that Republic had acquired some assets but not an "air carrier" and entered judgment in favor of the Teamsters. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, reasoning that Midwest was completely integrated into Republic.

In 2005, petitioner, then a teenager, left Honduras and entered the U.S. illegally. When he was caught and DHS began removal proceedings, he filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he had suffered persecution at the hands of a street gang on account of his evangelical Christian religious beliefs and his church youth group membership. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the application because petitioner failed to establish that the gang's actions were on account of his religion or social group membership. The Seventh Circuit denied an appeal, finding the denial supported by substantial evidence.

Defendant, an "infomercialist," violated a court-approved settlement with the FTC by misrepresenting the content of his book, The Weight Loss Cure They Don't Want You to Know About. The district court held him in contempt, ordered him to pay $37.6 million to the FTC, and banned him from making infomercials for three years. The Seventh Circuit vacated the sanctions. On remand, the district court reinstated the $37.6 million remedial fine, explaining that it reached that figure by multiplying the price of the book by the 800-number orders, plus the cost of shipping, less returns, and instructing the FTC to distribute the funds to those who bought the book using the 800-number. Any remainder was to be returned to defendant. The district court also imposed a coercive sanction, a $2 million performance bond, effective for at least five years. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court order, the performance bond in particular, does not violate the First Amendment.

Plaintiff resigned from her probationary employment with the department of corrections after she was charged, by the state's attorney, with failure to cooperate in an investigation. She had been a witness in a criminal investigation; she sued the detective conducting the investigation, alleging that when she refused to lie to further the investigation, he tortiously interfered with her employment. She sued the sheriff and the director of personnel, claiming First Amendment retaliation, retaliatory discharge, and violation of procedural due process rights. Claims against the detective were dismissed for failure to state a claim; the court granted the county summary judgment on all remaining claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. There was no evidence that the detective had anything to do with the charge against plaintiff. There was no evidence that the investigation of plaintiff or the charges were in retaliation for refusal to lie. Because she was in her probationary period, plaintiff had no property interest in her position.

In 2006 petitioner was sentenced as a career offender for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. His appeals were unsuccessful; the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Defendant was engaged in litigation with the state, seeking to vacate one of the convictions used as a basis for career offender status. He was ultimately successful. In the meantime, the district court denied a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence and, on remand, denied it twice again. The court declined to stay with respect to the challenged state conviction. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. Petitioner was diligent in pursuing remedies and the district court should have stayed the then-unripe petition while the state challenge was pending, to enable petitioner to comply with the requirements for a timely habeas petition.

In 2001 defendant was sentenced to 137 months' imprisonment, fined $1,250, and placed on supervised release for 3 years for conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with the intent to distribute. Conditions of release required three drug tests, at the discretion of the parole officer, and participation in a treatment program. After he was released, the United States Probation Office moved to add a condition for mental health treatment, based on defendant punching his daughter. The petition did not mention any modification of the drug testing condition. Defendant did not object to the mental health condition, but appealed the court's imposition of a condition that he submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the court, not to exceed 52 tests in one year. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(2) a district court has wide discretion in imposing the terms of supervised release.

Plaintiffs' insurance policy indemnifies them against liability under several federal environmental protection laws or the state-law equivalents. They attempted to invoke their policy for up to $10 million in coverage following an explosion on one of their vessels that resulted in an oil spill in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The district court granted the insurer judgment on the pleadings that: it owed $5,000,000 per vessel, per incident and had fully honored the policy with respect to one vessel; it owed no coverage for either two others for in rem liability. It granted the insureds summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, finding that the insurer owed $5,000,000 in coverage for a vessel, was obligated to pay defense costs up to that amount, and had breached its contract by not doing so. It denied summary judgment on a claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Illinois law permits purchasers of tickets to sporting contests, concerts, and similar events to resell tickets via auction sites on the Internet. Chicago, which imposes an amusement tax on the original ticket price, contends that the websites through which tickets are resold must collect and remit an additional tax on the difference between the original price and the resale price. In parallel cases, the Supreme Court of Illinois decided that Illinois law does not allow Chicago to collect its tax from the auction sites. In a case involving another online site, the Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment against the city and denied the city's motion for an extension to allow petition for rehearing to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Indiana University had an Instructional Television Fixed Service license, issued by the FCC, that authorized broadcast on specified frequencies. A not-for-profit ITFS licensee can lease unused frequencies to a for-profit entity. The university was contemplating assigning frequencies to PBS, but before it did, PBS quitclaimed its rights to the debtor. Thinking that the transfer was final, debtor modified equipment at a cost of $350,000. The bankruptcy trustee filed a claim against the university, contending that it had promised PBS the license, that debtor had reasonably relied on the promise, and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel entitled debtor to damages of $116,000. The claim settled for $100,000. Because the settlement left the estate with insufficient assets to pay unsecured creditors, a creditor challenged it. The bankruptcy court, district court, and Seventh Circuit affirmed. The trustee decided that pursuing a claim for the license was hopeless and made a reasonable decision.

The Seventh Circuit consolidated two cases involving transfer to courts in another country. One is an appeal from an order to transfer cases involving vehicular accidents allegedly caused by tires installed on vehicles in Latin America, from the Southern District of Indiana to the courts of Mexico. Its i a suit by Mexican citizens arising from the death of another Mexican citizen in an accident in Mexico. The second involves transfer, to Israel, of suits against manufacturers of blood products used by hemophiliacs, which turned out to be contaminated by HIV; it was brought by Israeli citizens infected by the products in Israel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the transfers. Noting the existence of apparently dispositive precedent, the court referred to "ostrich-like tactic of pretending that potentially dispositive authority against a litigant's contention does not exist."