The Appellate Section has primary responsibility for handling
civil rights cases in the courts of appeals and, in cooperation with the
Solicitor General, in the Supreme Court. The Section also provides legal
counsel to other components of the Department of Justice regarding civil
rights law and appellate litigation.
Most of the Section's appeals are from district court judgments in cases
originally handled by trial sections within the Division. The appellate
caseload is both affirmative and defensive. Thus, the Section handles all
appeals from both favorable and adverse judgments in which the government
participates.
A significant proportion of the Section's work involves participation
as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in cases that have the potential
for affecting Division enforcement responsibilities. In this capacity,
the Appellate Section closely monitors federal court cases to which the
United States is not a party. In many of these cases, especially those
concerned with developing or problematic areas of civil rights law, the
Section uses the federal government's authority to file an amicus curiae
brief to register the government's position.
The following are summaries of cases in the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals in which the Section recently participated on behalf of the United States as a party or amicus curiae.
In the Supreme Court:
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, No. 05-908, and Meredith v. Jefferson County Public Schools, No. 05-915. Petitioners, parents of students who were, or who may be, denied assignment to their schools of choice under the student assignment plans operating in Seattle and Jefferson County (KY) public school districts, filed suit against their respective school districts alleging that the districts’ assignment plans violate the Equal Protection Clause. Agreeing with the views of the United States as amicus curiae, the Court held that the school districts failed to show that their interest in racial classifications met either of the two prior justifications recognized by the Court as serving a compelling interest: (1) as a means to remedy de jure segregation, or (2) as one component in an effort to achieve overall diversity in the context of higher education. The Court also held that the minimal effects of the schools’ use of race, and the schools’ admitted failure to consider methods other than explicit racial classifications, are evidence that the schools’ use of race was not narrowly tailored.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., No. 05-1074. Ledbetter filed suit alleging, inter alia, disparate pay based on sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. The Supreme Court ruled, consistent with the position the United States advocated as amicus curiae, that the limitations period for a Title VII disparate-pay claim does not begin anew with the issuance of each paycheck that may reflect the lingering effects of a time-barred discriminatory act. A contrary approach, the Court reasoned, would both remove the need to prove a discriminatory act during the limitations period and distort the statute’s enforcement procedure. The Court therefore concluded that Ledbetter’s claim was untimely.
Winkelman v. Parma City School District, No. 05-983. The Winkelmans and their son, Jacob, who has autism, filed suit alleging that their local school district committed various violations of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Supreme Court ruled, consistent with the position the United States advocated as amicus curiae, that parents may proceed pro se in federal court on both substantive and procedural claims under the IDEA. In concluding that parents may proceed pro se on IDEA claims in federal court, the Court held that IDEA grants parents themselves independent, enforceable rights, including the substantive right to a free appropriate public education for their child.
Follow this link to the Office of the Solicitor
General for briefs filed in the Supreme Court.
In the Courts of Appeals:
United States v. Lee, No. 05-10478 (9th Cir.). The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant’s convictions for violations of 18 U.S.C. 241 (civil rights conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. 1584 (involuntary servitude), 18 U.S.C. 1951 (extortion), and 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (money laundering), and his sentence of 40 years. The court held that the district court (1) correctly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on comments government counsel made during rebuttal argument; (3) was not required to refer to American Samoan law when it instructed the jury; and (4) was entitled to decide whether to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3584.
United States v. Skinner & Acosta, No. 05-3346 (2d Cir.). Skinner and Acosta, former Buffalo Police Department narcotics detectives, were convicted after a jury trial of violating 18 U.S.C. 241, several counts of 18 U.S.C. 242, and related firearms charges (18 U.S.C. 924(c)). Defendants executed unlawful search warrants on the homes of suspected drug dealers, and then stole money and property from the subjects of the investigation. In its per curiam opinion, the Second Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. 241 and 18 U.S.C. 242 (where use, attempted use, or threatened use of a weapon is charged) are predicate crimes of violence that can support an 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction (i.e., use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence). In its accompanying summary order, the court held that (1) the evidence was sufficient to support defendants’ convictions; (2) the indictment properly alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. 242; (3) Acosta’s three 18 U.S.C. 924(c) convictions did not expose him to double jeopardy; (4) the judge did not err in giving the jury a Pinkerton charge; (5) the judge properly instructed the jury on the definition of “use,” as it is used in 18 U.S.C. 242; and (6) defendants received a fair trial.
United States v. Simmons, Nos. 05-60419 & 05-60587 (5th Cir.). Defendant, while on duty as a police officer, took a 19-year-old woman into custody, drove her to a remote wooded area in the middle of the night, and raped her repeatedly, as another police officer served as a lookout. He was acquitted of sexual battery and conspiracy charges in state court. At his federal trial, defendant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 242 by committing sexual assault that involved “aggravated sexual abuse” and resulted in bodily injury to the victim. The district court sentenced him to 20 years in prison, even though the Sentencing Guidelines (as appropriately applied) called for life imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction, and the United States cross-appealed his sentence. In upholding defendant’s conviction, the Fifth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction under Section 242. In vacating defendant’s sentence, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the United States that the district court erred in calculating the Guidelines range by refusing to impose a two-level enhancement under Guidelines § 2A3.1(b)(3)(A), which applies if the victim was “in the custody, care, or supervisory control of the defendant.” In light of that holding, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether defendant’s sentence of only 20 years was unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Follow this link for 
