Schuchardt v. President of the U.S. — civil — reversal — Hardiman
Today the Third Circuit ruled in favor of a solo civil practitioner named Elliott Schurchardt appearing pro se and appealing the denial of a pro se suit he brought against the government on behalf himself and others similarly situated. The pro se filer alleged that the NSA’s electronic monitoring violates the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed his suit on standing grounds, but the Third Circuit held that the pro se filer’s allegations were sufficient to survive dismissal on standing grounds, even though he alleged that the harm here resulted from collection of “all or substantially all of the email sent by American citizens by means of several large internet service providers.”
I’m going to go way out on a limb and predict a government rehearing petition and/or cert petition.
Joining Hardiman were Smith and Nygaard. Arguing counsel were Schuchardt (his address in the caption is in Virginia, his website lists Tennessee, and 2015 news coverage says Pittsburgh) pro se, and Henry Whitaker of the DOJ appellate section for the government.
UPDATE: seemingly intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the miraculously prevailing appellant already has been quoted in this news story as follows:
The appellate court ruling, however, limits his ability to subpoena evidence and depose witnesses, apparently exempting anything with a national security classification.
“If that’s the case, I’m not sure how much further the case can go because obviously, this entire area is classified,” said Schuchardt, who is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court on that part of the decision.
U.S. ex rel. Customs Fraud v. Victaulic — civil / qui tam — reversal — Roth
A divided Third Circuit panel today ruled that a district court erred in denying on futility grounds a qui tam relator’s motion for leave to amend its complaint. This appeal arises from the same amazing sitting I wrote about a couple weeks ago, the tenth published opinion from that panel.
Joining Roth was Krause; Fuentes dissented with vigor, arguing, “Whereas Twombly and Iqbal require plausible allegations of wrongdoing, CFI gives us unsupported assumptions and numerical guesswork.” Arguing counsel were Jonathan Tycko of D.C. for the appellant, Henry Whitaker (same one) for the government as amicus appellant, and Thomas Hill of D.C. for the appellee.