CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MARK CRAWFORD; RAND PAUL, in his official capacity as member of the United States Senate; ROGER JOHNSON; DANIEL KUETTEL; STEPHEN J. KISH; DONNALANE NELSON; L. MARC ZELL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; UNITED STATES FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-3539
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 3:15-cv-00250—Thomas M. Rose, District Judge.
Argued: January 24, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 18, 2017
Before: BOGGS, SILER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In 2010, Congress passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), a law aimed at reducing tax evasion by United States taxpayers holding funds in foreign accounts. FATCA imposes account-reporting requirements (and hefty penalties for noncompliance) on both individual taxpayers and foreign financial institutions (FFIs). FFIs are further required to deduct and withhold a “tax” equal to 30% of every payment made by the FFI to a noncompliant (or “recalcitrant”) account holder. To implement FATCA worldwide, the United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have concluded intergovernmental agreements (IGAs), which facilitate FFIs’ disclosure of financial-account information to the United States government, with more than seventy countries. Separately from FATCA and the IGAs, the Bank Secrecy Act imposes a foreign bank account reporting (FBAR) requirement on Americans living abroad who have aggregate foreignaccount balances over $10,000; willful failure to file an FBAR invites a penalty of 50% of the value of the reportable accounts or $100,000, whichever is greater.

Plaintiffs—who include Senator Rand Paul and several individuals who claim to be subject to FATCA and the FBAR—sought to enjoin the enforcement of FATCA, the IGAs, and the FBAR, and they now appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit for lack of standing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
AMANDA SUMPTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WAYNE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-2102
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
No. 5:14-cv-14769—John Corbett O’Meara, District Judge.
Argued: March 9, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 18, 2017
Before: CLAY, SUTTON, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Pretrial detainees must tolerate some invasion of their privacy in order to accommodate the important government interests necessary for the operation of the detention facility. For instance, detainees may be subjected to suspicionless strip searches as part of the jail’s intake process. See Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318, 328 (2012). The issue we face is whether periodically conducting group strip searches when the number of jail inmates waiting to be processed makes individual searches imprudent constitutes a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. Under the facts of this case, we answer that question “no” and therefore hold that the jail official who conducted the group searches, defendant Terri Graham, is entitled to qualified immunity. In addition, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Wayne County and the Wayne County Sheriff on plaintiff’s Monell claims and requests for injunctive and declaratory relief.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DEBI MCKINNEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CARLTON MANOR NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., et al.,
Defendants,

SOVRAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-3895
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:14-cv-00279—Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge.
Argued: August 2, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 18, 2017
Before: SILER, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. After the Ohio Department of Health cited Carlton Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center for health and safety violations, the nursing home hired Sovran Management Company to help turn things around. When that did not work, the nursing home closed its doors for good. Debi McKinney, a former worker at the nursing home, claims that Sovran owes the nursing home’s employees back pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires “employer[s]” to give their employees 60 days’ notice before they “order” the closing of a company. 29 U.S.C. § 2102. The district court ruled as a matter of law for Sovran. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. BRIAN WALL,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CIRCLE C CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant
   No. 16-6169
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:07-cv-00091—Kevin H. Sharp, Chief District Judge.
Argued: March 15, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 18, 2017v Before: BATCHELDER, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. This case is before us for a third time. The defendant, Circle C Construction, is a family-owned general contractor that built 42 warehouses for the United States Army in Kentucky and Tennessee. In the course of building all those warehouses, over a period of seven years, a subcontractor, Phase Tech, paid two of its electricians about $9,900 less than the wages mandated by the Davis-Bacon Act. That underpayment rendered false a number of “compliance statements” that Circle C submitted to the government along with its invoices. As a result, the government thereafter pursued Circle C for nearly a decade of litigation, demanding not merely $9,900—Phase Tech itself had paid $15,000 up front to settle that underpayment—but rather $1.66 million, of which $554,000 was purportedly “actual damages” for the $9,900 underpayment. The government’s theory in support of that demand was that all of Phase Tech’s electrical work, in all of the warehouses, was “tainted” by the $9,900 underpayment—and therefore worthless. “The problem with that theory,” we wrote in the last appeal, was that, “in all of these warehouses, the government turns on the lights every day.” United States ex rel. Wall v. Circle C Constr., LLC, 813 F.3d 616, 617 (6th Cir. 2016). We therefore reversed a $763,000 judgment in favor of the government and remanded for entry of an award of $14,748—less than 1% of the government’s demand.

. . .

The district court abused its discretion when it denied Circle C’s motion. We reverse the district court’s June 17, 2016 Order and remand the case for an award to Circle C of “the fees and other expenses related to defending against the [government’s] excessive demand,” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(D), including, to the extent appropriate, fees incurred during this appeal and on remand.