In the middle of the night, a drunk man in his 30s took a taxi from St. Louis to Ballwin, Missouri, asked the taxi driver to stop on the street near the home of Jon Luer and his wife, Andrea Steinebach, and exited the taxi without paying his $65 fare. The driver reported the fare skipper to the police at 2:38 am, and officers arrived on the scene 2:45 am.

When a district court addresses the merits of a Federal Tort Claims Act claim in its decision dismissing that claim for failing to legally state a claim, the FTCA bars the plaintiffs from bringing any Bivens claim on the same subject matter, the Supreme Court held today.

McKenzie Holmes was a U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) employee from 1989, until his removal in 2018. At the time of his removal, he worked as a city carrier at the Fort Dearborn Station in Chicago.

Plaintiffs, ten U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident, brought suit against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Kirstjen Nielsen, Acting Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Kevin McAleenan, and Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Thomas Homan, alleging that certain CBP and ICE policies and practices violated their Fourth Amendment rights.

On-camera participation in a password-protected Zoom videoconference may be relied upon as evidence of a conspiracy, the Third Circuit recently held. In that same decision, the Court held Zoom user logs are “classic business records” that may be introduced into evidence.

Floyd Douglas Newton worked as a National Guard dual status technician from 1980 until 2013. A dual status military technician is a federal civilian position supporting the Selected Reserve or armed forces. Though civilians, dual status technicians are required to maintain National Guard membership, hold a particular military grade, and wear appropriate military uniform, among other requirements.

Muna Abdulkadir was a witness for the government in a federal sex-trafficking case. In that case, thirty individuals were charged and detained as suspected participants in a sex-trafficking scheme. Of the thirty individuals, only nine were tried, and all were acquitted.

Government officials may be sued in their personal capacity for alleged violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), the Supreme Court held in the case of Tanzin v. Tanvir, issued last week.

A VA police officer was removed by the Department of Veterans Affairs under the 2017 “accountability” law 38 U.S.C. § 714 that limited review of VA’s actions against general schedule employees. The removal was based on conduct occurring prior to the enactment of the law. The employee appealed to the MSPB, and the MSPB affirmed the removal. On December 7, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the MSPB’s decision, and remanded the case to the MSPB with instructions to remand the case further back to the agency.

On November 3, 2020, the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced that it had reached two agreements with the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). A statement by OSC claimed that the “core goals of the agreements are to protect the independence of the respective Inspectors General and provide better outcomes to whistleblowers who report allegations of wrongdoing by OIGs.” The agreements are “the result of a years-long effort to clarify standards of procedure for such disclosures.”

While conducting a narcotics investigation, the Monroe Police Department learned from drug dealers and cooperating witnesses that Matthew Beaudion and his girlfriend, Jessica Davis, were distributing drugs. Officers obtained Davis’s phone number from one witness. The witness also told the officers that Beaudion and Davis planned to drive from Houston to Monroe with four pounds of meth.

The MSPB cannot consider an agency’s interpretation or presentation of evidence to decide whether an individual-right-of-action presents a non-frivolous allegation of whistleblower reprisal, the Federal Circuit clarified in a recent holding.

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.”